Re: I was looking at the fat/lean muscle

[Guest guest]

Fat can't turn into muscle (or vice versa). They're two different tissues. The

main point of the photo ( here's a copy http://skwigg.com/fat_and_muscle.jpg )

is that those two models weigh the same yet the muscle takes up half as much

space. It's why the scale is such a poor indicator of progress. I could wear a

size 4 back in my eating disorder days when I was a starving, flabby,

cellulite-ridden, 115 pounds. I can still wear a size 4 at a lean, muscular,

well-defined 135 pounds. I'm 20 pounds heavier but I'm no bigger. Muscle is some

miraculous stuff!

Your nutrition book might be a good overview but it might also be full of dated

government recommendations. If it tells you that protein is bad, fat makes you

fat, and you need to start eating 11 servings of bread a day just put it down

and back away slowly. :-) There's a difference between modern sports nutrition

geared toward bodybuilding and the ultra-conservative approach taken by many

registered dietitians and academic types. For my own purposes, I hesitate to

take nutrition advice from anybody I haven't seen in a bikini. :-) The main

exception being Hussman, who's a genius at explaining nutrition and

physiology even though he's lacking a bikini photo

http://www.hussman.org/fitness/ .

I was looking at the fat/lean muscle

I'm confused! I obviously have a lot of reading to do...but the

picture that was attached to the link shows a hunk of fat and then

the lean muscle...does the fat eventually turn to the muscle??

Err...where does the fat go?? *LOL* I know I sound like a

dork...but I'm curious. I bought a book at the thrift store on

Nutrition..I think its a college book...I'm going to jump into that

soon...I need to learn about all sorts of things...and how they

work...I think it will help me better understand how BFL works and

what the benefits are and all that...

[Guest guest]

The Nutrition book is a 4th edition done in 2000...is that too

outdated??? Its called Nutrition concepts and controversies. It

looks pretty interesting.

I am anxious to try on some of my jeans in about another week....all

I have been wearing lately is PJ bottoms and my workout clothes...I

have found that just last night when I put a pair of PJ bottoms on I

haven't worn in awhile *seemed* looser....I dunno though. I am

going to do a weigh in and measurements at the end of week 4...which

I start next week

> Fat can't turn into muscle (or vice versa). They're two different

tissues. The main point of the photo ( here's a copy

http://skwigg.com/fat_and_muscle.jpg ) is that those two models

weigh the same yet the muscle takes up half as much space. It's why

the scale is such a poor indicator of progress. I could wear a size

4 back in my eating disorder days when I was a starving, flabby,

cellulite-ridden, 115 pounds. I can still wear a size 4 at a lean,

muscular, well-defined 135 pounds. I'm 20 pounds heavier but I'm no

bigger. Muscle is some miraculous stuff!

>

> Your nutrition book might be a good overview but it might also be

full of dated government recommendations. If it tells you that

protein is bad, fat makes you fat, and you need to start eating 11

servings of bread a day just put it down and back away slowly. :-)

There's a difference between modern sports nutrition geared toward

bodybuilding and the ultra-conservative approach taken by many

registered dietitians and academic types. For my own purposes, I

hesitate to take nutrition advice from anybody I haven't seen in a

bikini. :-) The main exception being Hussman, who's a genius at

explaining nutrition and physiology even though he's lacking a

bikini photo http://www.hussman.org/fitness/ .

>

>

>

> I was looking at the

fat/lean muscle

>

>

> I'm confused! I obviously have a lot of reading to do...but the

> picture that was attached to the link shows a hunk of fat and

then

> the lean muscle...does the fat eventually turn to the muscle??

> Err...where does the fat go?? *LOL* I know I sound like a

> dork...but I'm curious. I bought a book at the thrift store on

> Nutrition..I think its a college book...I'm going to jump into

that

> soon...I need to learn about all sorts of things...and how they

> work...I think it will help me better understand how BFL works

and

> what the benefits are and all that...

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

<<is that those two models weigh the same yet the muscle takes up

half as much space. It's why the scale is such a poor indicator of

progress.>>

As an example of this phenomenom, is a fave before/after pic of

Shirley on the BodyChangers website - and you see this type of

person alot, who is skinnyflabby - and people dont understand that

in her before pic she is just as unhealthy/out of shape as people

might think an overweight person would be, because her bodyfat

percentage is too high for her frame & she has no muscle (having

muscle is important to being healthy as you get older as you can

lose up to a pound of muscle per year after age 30). In this link

she actually GAINED 5lbs 'scaleweight' and cut her bodyfat

percentage from 22% to 13% to become beautifully lean:

http://www.bodychangers.com/shirleys_inter.shtml

<<Your nutrition book might be a good overview but it might also be

full of dated government recommendations. If it tells you that

protein is bad, fat makes you fat, and you need to start eating 11

servings of bread a day just put it down and back away slowly. :-)>>

Hahaha you crack me up ! Funny because its soooooo true! There

is ALOT of not only old misinformation still out there, but even so

much contradictory stuff abounding today as well. I like the

HowStuffWorks website for getting all the basics down about how the

human body works (love Hussmans site too)thats a good starting point

and then alot of other stuff begins to make sense when you learn how

the body uses food for fuel, it all begins to make sense when you

know human physiology: http://health.howstuffworks.com/diet.htm

<<There's a difference between modern sports nutrition geared toward

bodybuilding and the ultra-conservative approach taken by many

registered dietitians and academic types>>

Might I also mention neither do most doctors today who I feel do

their patients a disservice by not instituting more 'get heathy'

aspects into their treatments. They treat the side effects of

unhealthy living but dont actively promote people getting healthy

again - oh just take this pill for that and this medication for this

and before you know it they are on twenty prescriptions for what

could have been avoided if the doctor wouldve gotten them on a

lifestyle makeover plan instead of just pushing pills at them. (hey

a good theme for a new tv show eh?!! 'Lifestyle Makeover'... we take

the overweight family and give them a new lease on life) ;-)

Actually I saw one close to that called 'Renovate My Family' but

caught one episode and havent seen it since...

As a medical biller for doctors, the whole lifestyle thing is kind

of my rant - there are so many common diseases related to choices in

lifestyle that it fuddles the mind as to whyhow people didnt take

control of their lives sooner. Ignorance in this case is not bliss.

<<joni>>

*If we could give every individual the right amount of nourishment

and exercise, not too little and not too much, we would have found

the safest way to health.*- Hippocrates c. 460 - 377 B.C.

[Guest guest]

The fat just melts away to reveal the muscle you've been working so

hard doing BFL.

To agree a bit with Joni, the whole medical field doesn't have a

clue about this sort of lifestyle. I don't even take my kids to the

dietition when they visit their diabetes doctor because I feel that

I know more about how and what to feed them myself.

Taking on the BFL lifestyle is not an easy task and promises no

quick results. But cumulatively, in my opinion BFL is far superior

to any eating regimen studied in science.

Your goals will be yours if you be patient and stick to it long term.

Stasia