Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I want to be slender and pretty. （￣▽￣）

EDIT: I know you guys could always say eat less, but I'm a growing girl, lol. The real question is how do I lose muscle mass more quickly while still getting that female body fat distribution and all that cool stuff that comes with puberty.

Eat low calories, and for the calories you do eat, aim only for a bare minimum healthy level of protein.

On top of that, do very long sessions of medium-high intensity cardio. Like, 70-75% of your max heart rate. They need to be long, like over an hour, because you need to burn up stored glycogen to start burning muscle.

Ya lose muscle when your body needs glucose and it won't do that until it's not getting enough from food to meet its needs.

Quote from: pretty on March 21, 2012, 02:25:00 AM
Eat low calories, and for the calories you do eat, aim only for a bare minimum healthy level of protein.

On top of that, do very long sessions of medium-high intensity cardio. Like, 70-75% of your max heart rate. They need to be long, like over an hour, because you need to burn up stored glycogen to start burning muscle.

Ya lose muscle when your body needs glucose and it won't do that until it's not getting enough from food to meet its needs.

Alright, I edited my post before you posted, so read that. :P Basically I'm concerned that if I eat less my body will have less to build my new body.

And won't running give me huge legs?

Quote from: alyx. on March 21, 2012, 02:04:27 AM
I want to be slender and pretty. （￣▽￣）

EDIT: I know you guys could always say eat less, but I'm a growing girl, lol. The real question is how do I lose muscle mass more quickly while still getting that female body fat distribution and all that cool stuff that comes with puberty.

You sit on your ass and play video games (not any button mashers though like God Of War)  and eat cheesecakes 

or you know you could leave that for post op

You could eat once a day and lots of cardio

PS How big are you anyway

  There isn't really anything you can do other then not doing any upper body exercises/work while you wait for hormones to reconfigure your body.
 
  I did the starving yourself method and it worked but I gained an eating disorder in the process.

  I look super skinny like models you see in magazines, I have barley any muscle mass.

  I don't have any curves either.  :(

   

Quote from: alyx. on March 21, 2012, 02:04:27 AM
I want to be slender and pretty. （￣▽￣）

EDIT: I know you guys could always say eat less, but I'm a growing girl, lol. The real question is how do I lose muscle mass more quickly while still getting that female body fat distribution and all that cool stuff that comes with puberty.

That smiley.... may be one of the cutest I've ever seen.... In short,I don't think there's much you can do aside from HRT. Maybe just neglecting exercise all together, but that's not good for your overall health.

Quote from: alyx. on March 21, 2012, 02:28:48 AM
Alright, I edited my post before you posted, so read that. :P Basically I'm concerned that if I eat less my body will have less to build my new body.

And won't running give me huge legs?

Well, just eat a lot of fruit then. And stick with not getting too much protein. But still do the long cardio. Doing a lot of running might make you skinny depending on how much you eat but it's certainly not gonna make your legs any bigger.

Granted, HRT is going to cause you to lose muscle mass on its own but, you said faster, lol.

As others have said:

HRT, time, only very light and high rep weights, and lots and lots of cardio.

You need to be doing just a tonne of cardio: 5+hrs/week. And it should be things like the elliptical (WITHOUT holding on) and running (but learn proper form: no heel strikes). Cycling can be good too, but not as much for what you specifically want.

I'm fine with having slightly muscular legs because I play competitive badminton. But I have to do a lot of this to reduce my upper body mass. HRT will help, definitely, though.

Reducing muscle mass is NOT (really) about your diet. You don't need to go into calorie deficit: that's for fat loss, not muscle loss!

Don't be the lazy couch potato. I read somewhere that exercise is good for transitioning which makes sense because the faster blood moves the faster estrogen moves. I would do a lot of cardio and an occasional light weight workout.

Why would anyone ever lift any weight at all if they aim to lose muscle mass? Weight lifting helps in maintaining or developing muscle, period.

Anyway, it may not be optimal at all for your health, but if you want to maximize muscle loss, avoid exercise altogether. If you do exercise and it burns your muscles as energy, it means you are past the point where there is practically no fat to burn anymore... Which means, zero curves or breasts. And unless your genetics naturally make you super skinny, as in, fat is hard to find at all, as soon as exercise burns muscle, I'm pretty sure you're past a danger line where you put a burden on your global health.

You see, exercise needs muscles. The body won't burn muscles for exercise energy unless it's in serious lack of nutrients. It would be its last resort, just before making you faint.

I'm not an expert, but I did listen in physical education and biology classes, and as far as I can tell, moving without fuel or fat is dangerous, period.

On the other hand, though, cardio exercise will probably help in fat redistribution. Even when the total fat percentage doesn't move much, or even when it increases, it's proven that visceral fat tends to diminish with cardiac exercise. (If you want to learn more, to the conditions that you live in Canada and understand French (._.), you can watch the Découverte episode on "Le grand défi Pierre Lavoie" on www.tou.tv (http://www.tou.tv)) Visceral fat is fatty tissue that surround the organs in your abdomen. Less fat in those areas, if the fat mass doesn't change overall, means more fat outside of those areas. This equals better health, but also better curves.

I asked a very similar question in another post (no idea how to link to it) because I also have some muscle mass that I want to get rid of. The general consensus from the replies really has been proper diet, exercise, and let time do its thing. I hate the time answer a lot and want results now;) but so many people posting on here are right. Don't rush things.

I work with nutrition a lot so I can definitely say that making sure you're getting enough in the way of essential vitamins and nutrients (carbs, protein, and fats included). Doing things like skipping meals can actually do a lot more harm than good since it tends to slow down the metabolism and makes all the work (and starving) you're doing counter-productive. I find that keeping a SMALL caloric deficit daily works really well for me in terms of my weight and my self-image, but everyone is different. I have enough energy to get my run in, get through my day, and I'm starting to feel really good about myself.

As for the weights thing, I know from experience that high reps at very low weight is fantastic for definition, but does keep the muscles active. I have no idea how that affects changes you might begin to see on hrt, and that was the question that I asked somewhere else. The important thing is figure out a routine that works for you, and that you can be good about sticking to. Diets that are too restrictive usually lead to lots of cheating (and usually the foods that I reach for when I would cheat we're the absolute worst things for my body) and an exercise regimen that is too intense leads to 'taking days off'

Hope that this helps :)

Quote from: A on March 22, 2012, 11:04:36 AM
Why would anyone ever lift any weight at all if they aim to lose muscle mass? Weight lifting helps in maintaining or developing muscle, period.

This is false. Light weights with high reps will streamline muscles and 'tone' rather than 'build.' It's about promoting the slow-twitch fibres rather than the fast-twitch ones. It's why runners have skinny legs: they're effectively doing (ultra) high rep, low weight resistance training on their legs. So you can do the same for your arms. We're talking 30-40 reps, and about getting a light burn.

But even definition is a bad thing, no? And even the most endurance-oriented training, with the smallest amount of actual strength involved, inevitably leads to small mass gains in mass or, in the situation we are facing, slows the muscle mass reduction because the muscle is kept active.

Or so my physical education teacher said. I fail to understand how it could be otherwise... I mean, the least active a muscle is, the more it shrinks, no? rachl, if you had further explanations, I'd love to understand.

Finally, about small caloric deficits, I'd still tend to be cautious about it, even if all vitamins, etc. are gotten. Could you ask a specialised health professional? Cause in weight loss and pure promotion of health, of course, it's a great solution. But I think HRT needs a little more calories to work with. It feels like a teenager in the most critical point of their adolescence who would diet. I get the impression it's a bad idea. But if you're sure, I guess it's all right. It works well with non-HRT people, after all.

My suggestion ? don't eat LESS eat normal portions of food, avoid high protein - high fat, meals, This basically puts most take aways and ready meals into the bin anyway ! You can eat meals like that occasionally, but not daily. avoid trying to starve yourself - sure you will loose weight, but the weight will never stay off. You'll end up putting it all back on again, and more. Exercise daily,  go for walks, as an example. Try and cut down on red meat, eat as little as you can. If you do like eating meat, only eat lean cuts of meat. Keep that to 100/150 grams a portion..? If you eat Fresh cooked Chicken, take the skin off, and remove any fat, from the chicken.

Basically eat what you like eating, though, but in sensible portions. Plus the bad food, cut down on that, and replace them with healthier options. I was pretty big 12 months ago.. I wont say how big. But suffice to say I have lost over 3 stone, through just changing my eating habits, and types of food I eat at any one time.

Oh, drinking (beer, or what ever) doesn't help either, as it contains junk calories.  You'll put on lots of weight. But drink lots of water, even diet coke if you like, to help. Makes you pee a lot, but also makes you feel full between meals too.

All that with allowing the HRT, to change your body, should help you I think. Some one recently mentioned trying yoga, as an exercise, I might actually give that ago soon myself ! :)

I want to second that. Meat, especially, is globally hurtful on your health (considering, of course, you get all the nutrients from somewhere else), especially if you eat lots of it. And even more if it's red meat. But past basic health, I'm sure the more you get, the easier it is for your muscles to maintain their mass. Meat, if we forget the fat, is just a big lump of huge (excessive?) amounts of protein, after all.

Another theory is lifting heavy weights with low reps breaks muscle down so how does it work when you break the muscle down and no longer have the T to build muscle after breaking it down?

Quote from: A on March 22, 2012, 12:33:55 PM
But even definition is a bad thing, no? And even the most endurance-oriented training, with the smallest amount of actual strength involved, inevitably leads to small mass gains in mass or, in the situation we are facing, slows the muscle mass reduction because the muscle is kept active.

Or so my physical education teacher said. I fail to understand how it could be otherwise... I mean, the least active a muscle is, the more it shrinks, no? rachl, if you had further explanations, I'd love to understand.

I was in working through a kinesiology degree, got certified as a personal trainer, and was a national-level athlete for years.

There's nothing wrong with definition: it's called being "toned." Men/women just have different goals.

There are massive amounts of poor information out there, and people who you'd think are experts are clueless. It's why I left the field: I didn't want my work lumped in with theirs. People seem to think that if you do anything (including any type of weights), you'll gain mass: F*&KING FALSE!

Rachl: But we can assume the old "high weight, low reps" addagio works for gain of mass right?

Im trying to get some butt and thighs :)

Quote from: Bird on March 22, 2012, 02:40:15 PM
Rachl: But we can assume the old "high weight, low reps" addagio works for gain of mass right?

Im trying to get some butt and thighs :)

Oh definitely. 3 supersets (you do one exercise, then its opposite: like a biceps curl, then a triceps extension) of 10reps maximizes size. If you want to balance size and strength gains, 6reps (with more weight) is the way to go. But it's imperative to do it with proper form: if your form has to break down, the weight is too heavy.

As always with health things, lots of misinformation going on in this thread.

Sorry, allow me to play mythbuster here:

Quote from: JS04011027 on March 21, 2012, 01:50:25 PM
Don't be the lazy couch potato. I read somewhere that exercise is good for transitioning which makes sense because the faster blood moves the faster estrogen moves. I would do a lot of cardio and an occasional light weight workout.

This makes no sense. Exercising increases your heart rate for the duration of the exercise, but it makes your body more efficient at delivering oxygen and nutrients, and so it has a net effect of lowering your pulse.

Quote from: A on March 22, 2012, 11:04:36 AM
Anyway, it may not be optimal at all for your health, but if you want to maximize muscle loss, avoid exercise altogether. If you do exercise and it burns your muscles as energy, it means you are past the point where there is practically no fat to burn anymore... Which means, zero curves or breasts. And unless your genetics naturally make you super skinny, as in, fat is hard to find at all, as soon as exercise burns muscle, I'm pretty sure you're past a danger line where you put a burden on your global health.

You see, exercise needs muscles. The body won't burn muscles for exercise energy unless it's in serious lack of nutrients. It would be its last resort, just before making you faint.

If you do exercise and it burns your muscles as energy, it means you are past the point where there is practically no fat to burn anymore... Which means, zero curves or breasts.

That's not how it works. Different types of exercise need different amounts of different fuels.

In exercise, the body relies mainly on a balance of muscle glycogen and fat oxidization for energy. That's why exercise is categorized as aerobic or anaerobic. Anaerobic is more intense exercise that relies mostly on stored muscle glycogen. Aerobic is lower intensity exercise that relies more on fat oxidization.

In anaerobic exercise, the intensity is simply too high to burn mainly fat. It's a more difficult process to extract energy from fat and most importantly, it needs oxygen. So instead, the body is forced to get its energy mainly from muscle glycogen. When muscle glycogen runs out, the body must catabolize (break down) the muscle tissue for energy. This does not mean there's "no fat." It would be a dieter's dream if exercising always only burnt 100% fat first.

Losing muscle happens when muscle catabolism outweighs muscle anabolism (putting on muscle). For muscle anabolism to happen, the body needs a) protein and b) glucose. Glucose in the diet triggers insulin secretion which increases protein uptake. The protein is used to repair and add new muscle fibers. The glucose is used to replenish muscle glycogen stores. Fructose (fruit sugar) can't be used to replenish muscle glycogen stores.

So, in short, to lose muscle, you need to:

-Do long-lasting, high-intensity cardio. It needs to be long enough to exhaust muscle glycogen and begin catabolizing muscle.
-Eat a diet that is moderately low in protein and is also low in high GI carbs (http://www.herbalvitality.info/aw/glycemic_index.htm). So whole wheat, not white. Fruits, not sweets. Etc.

Note that a muscle loss diet is very similar to a fat loss diet. The only major difference is the kind of exercise you should be doing and how long you should be doing it for. And yes, you do need an overall caloric restriction to lose any kind of mass. By caloric restriction, I mean taking in less energy than you burn. You don't necessarily have to eat less since you'd be burning so much through exercise. It just depends on the actual amounts you usually eat.

Quote from: Kitty_Babe on March 22, 2012, 12:40:37 PM
My suggestion ? don't eat LESS eat normal portions of food, avoid high protein - high fat, meals,

This is a really common misnomer and allow me to point it out: fat is not the problem. High fat meals do not magically make you bigger in either the fat sense or the muscle sense. A low-fat diet is not useful for any purpose and it's simply not healthy. Getting the right types of fats is important, sure. But avoiding fat altogether is a very bad idea.

Quote from: rachl on March 22, 2012, 12:04:03 PM
This is false. Light weights with high reps will streamline muscles and 'tone' rather than 'build.' It's about promoting the slow-twitch fibres rather than the fast-twitch ones. It's why runners have skinny legs: they're effectively doing (ultra) high rep, low weight resistance training on their legs. So you can do the same for your arms. We're talking 30-40 reps, and about getting a light burn.

Toning has nothing to do with the shape of the muscles. Becoming "toned" just means having lower bodyfat so the muscles become more visible.

Runners have skinny legs because they burn massive amounts of energy in endurance runs and they naturally have a calorie deficit and lose weight (both muscle and fat) until their body is light enough that they burn less energy and can recover it all through eating.

Quote from: A on March 22, 2012, 12:52:29 PM
I want to second that. Meat, especially, is globally hurtful on your health

Another misnomer, there's nothing about meat that makes it inherently harmful to health. Like you said, it's just protein. And it's high-quality protein too (it has all the essential amino acids).

Meat (and especially red meat) usually becomes unhealthy as a result of factory-farmed animals being fed a diet of grain or corn. This makes the animals unhealthy and that carries over to the meat, skewing the meat's fat profile to be unusally low in omega-3 fatty acids. Red meat raised on a healthy diet is perfectly healthy though, especially because most people do not get enough omega-3 fat in their diets these days.

Vitamin b12 is also hard to get from anything other than meat, so skipping meat and dairy will cause you to be deficient if you don't supplement b12.

Quote from: alyx. on March 21, 2012, 02:04:27 AM
I want to be slender and pretty. （￣▽￣）

EDIT: I know you guys could always say eat less, but I'm a growing girl, lol. The real question is how do I lose muscle mass more quickly while still getting that female body fat distribution and all that cool stuff that comes with puberty.

stop lifting anything.. if you do lift a cup of water etc to your mouth do it with two hands and se a half cup at a time. Carry things with a bag using your shoulder not your hands.. yes atrophy works.. i shrank like 50% by doin this and not even driving and my arms and hands shrunk and i was weak bt it did work. I also had saline injections into my veins to collaspe them which did fast. it did sting but that was over fast.

oh well those were the early days.. i am back to having muscles and i chop firewood and don't worry what people think

Quote from: pretty on March 22, 2012, 03:42:03 PM


Toning has nothing to do with the shape of the muscles. Becoming "toned" just means having lower bodyfat so the muscles become more visible.

Runners have skinny legs because they burn massive amounts of energy in endurance runs and they naturally have a calorie deficit and lose weight (both muscle and fat) until their body is light enough that they burn less energy and can recover it all through eating.

Sorry, but THAT's misinformation. Toning IS shape. Women lift weights to tone their muscles (SHAPE), not to lose fat (per se). Come on. (Sorry, that was mean, but it's frustrating.)

Same with runners: they do NOT have a "natural calorie deficit." That depends on how much one is training and one's diet. They legs are a result of the body becoming more efficient responding to training.

Quote from: pretty on March 22, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Another misnomer, there's nothing about meat that makes it inherently harmful to health. Like you said, it's just protein. And it's high-quality protein too (it has all the essential amino acids).

Meat (and especially red meat) usually becomes unhealthy as a result of factory-farmed animals being fed a diet of grain or corn. This makes the animals unhealthy and that carries over to the meat, skewing the meat's fat profile to be unusally low in omega-3 fatty acids. Red meat raised on a healthy diet is perfectly healthy though, especially because most people do not get enough omega-3 fat in their diets these days.

Vitamin b12 is also hard to get from anything other than meat, so skipping meat and dairy will cause you to be deficient if you don't supplement b12.

Fantastic post overall, Thank You

Also I really love meat, and fish, etc so I totally advocate for being an omnivore. Most people don't get a lot of linolenic acid and alpha-linolenic acid (essential fatty acids, omega-6 being linolenic, 3 being alpha) I wanted to add that Amaranth and Quinoa, among others, are great sources to get your omega fatty acids, both 3 and 6, if the whole meat thing isn't to your taste :). They're also great grains overall since they're both high in essential vitamins and minerals.
Vitamin B12 is exclusively an animal food product. You can still get it in eggs, milk, cheeses, and other milk products, but iirc plant foods don't naturally contain b12. So outside of that you really need to consider a supplement.

Not super pertinent to this thread I know, but just wanted to add that there are ways to getting around eating meat and still maintaining a healthy diet overall.

As far as the toning vs building part though, rachl is spot on, low weight and high reps tone and define, not build

Quote from: rachl on March 22, 2012, 04:16:11 PM
Sorry, but THAT's misinformation. Toning IS shape. Women lift weights to tone their muscles (SHAPE), not to lose fat (per se). Come on.

I don't know, it may be a semantic issue, but when I hear other women talk about "toning" they're pretty much always talking about making the muscles more visible to get rid of a flabby appearance. Of course, what that's describing is simply lowering bodyfat.

Quote
Same with runners: they do NOT have a "natural calorie deficit." That depends on how much one is training and one's diet. They legs are a result of the body becoming more efficient responding to training.

Well, distance runners stay pretty skinny in general, and that's because of the energy demands of distance running. There is a muscle density difference, but I think it's visually not as significant as you're making it out to be.

For example, Dean Karnazes:

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftosic.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2Fdean-karnazes.jpg&hash=5b9085b390dafe103a9e16aeaf2925142b28c2bb)

He doesn't have "skinny legs" because he's not skinny, despite the fact that he's a serial super-marathon runner. He also eats a ton of food while he runs, so there's that.

I would argue that the main reason runners have skinny legs is primarily just because they have a generally low body mass.

But yeah, I feel silly arguing about that. I don't actually care, lol  :).

If you're sure of yourselves, I won't argue, but I still have trouble to believe that any non-dangerous level of exercise would catabolise muscle... I don't know, it just feels so illogical that the body would reduce its capacity to do exercise because it does exercise.

Anyway, I read something interesting about meat. Actually, inherently, it actually is bad for the health. Nearly all the fat there is in meat (and there is always some) is saturated or trans. And both of these have been proven, I think, to not only be damaging when taken in excess, but to actually always be noxious, no matter the dose (prior to reading that, I thought saturated and trans fats were nutrients we needed, but in very small amounts, like sodium). (Of course, a very low amount has super low impacts, I guess). This is what makes every "writer" I've read think that meat is unhealthy all the time. Of course, it's not poison, but I read it's a hindrance to the body.

About vitamin B12, they say that natural meat itself is not all that rich in B12. Most of the vitamin B12 in meat would actually come from the supplements producers add to animals' food, i.e. the very same source as what they put in soy milk and pills. Not sure where, but I read something a while ago saying that prehistoric humans were either in B12 deficit, adding to the list of potential reasons why they rarely passed 40 years in age, either had bacteria in their intestines that produced the vitamin for them, either didn't need a lot of B12, either had another source of B12, extinct today. Anyway, the article said that entirely natural meat would need a huge consumption to provide sufficient B12. Vitamin B12 is weird; we need the nutrient to survive, yet it's such a rare molecule.

Not sure of the validity of any info here, and can't find the sources, but it "looked credible". If you have something more solid, though, even if it contradicts me, don't hesitate to speak away.

PS: How do runners have skinny legs? I saw a a triathlon champion once, and his legs were quite muscular. Of course, if you compare them to sprinters, I'm sure their legs can be called skinny, but his leg muscles certainly looked bigger than average.

I have to say that I'm one of the first to admit when I'm wrong, and I happily do so. I'm also very nervous that I'm coming across as as a know it all or whatnot as I'm still fairly new to posting here. I've gotten a lot of help from these forums and I do want to share and help out where I can though. In general the exercise side, I'm asking the some of the same questions myself as to what works best and what doesn't. I know from my past experience a bit how things work but I'm still learning and want to learn more about how things behave when HRT is added into the mix. The nutrition stuff I'm very confident on though. And I can summarize all of the nutrition stuff really as eat a balanced and healthy diet for you. Fats, proteins, and carbs are all important to good health, and eating healthy can help give you the needed energy to lose weight through exercise. Losing weight is simply a calories game, if you burn more calories than you consume in a given day then you lose weight (the caloric defect), and vice versa. Cutting down on calories too much slows the metabolism and changes your daily caloric needs since your body tries to save what little resources its getting, so diet with moderation. Talk to a nutritionist or a doctor and try to figure out a good plan for you. This all assuming your goal is to lose weight overall. I don't know how to specifically target muscle which is why I've asked the same questions, and don't know if its even possible, but I would like to know if it is. Anyway I really hope that I haven't offended anyone or come across as arrogant and I hope that this helps in some way.  :)

So for those who are interested, more backgroundy info with some sourcing to back it up:
As far as fats are concerned, they are indeed necessary, in fact a lot of them can be good. It's all about moderation, someone that has a high intake of fat (iirc a high intake is more than 35% of daily kcal) might develop problems because at this level they're likely consuming excess calories. On the other hand low intake (less than 20% of daily kcal) can lead to lack of fatty acids and vitamin E, which could in turn develop into (negative) changes in your HDL cholesterol and triglycerides. Saturated fats do have a direct link to LDL levels so they should not be consumed in excess, but skipping on them means you're likely going to be missing out on essential vitamins and minerals. So yes, more of your fats should be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated. If you really want to check more into this ; from the Food and Nutrition Board: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=422 (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10490&page=422) ).
And the B12 stuff, I agree that its kinda a weird vitamin in that its so rare, but we need so little of it that usually not thinking about it you meet your daily needs. Its when you start eliminating things that dangerous things can start happening. Check out this site if you're interested in learning more ; from the NIH http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitaminb12/ (http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitaminb12/)

Ehm, saturated fats, if I understand well, aren't useful, but tend to come with some nutrients absent from healthy oils? This is he first I've heard of it. It's very surprising, since I've never seen any mention on Health Canada / Nutrition Facts' pages that saturated fats could in any way be useful when I searched for a school project... Any info? (Non-"page 494" info, please. o.o)

B12, actually, is only a concern to vegetarians and vegans, in most cases, IMO. It's so common in modern meat that there's no issue to the vast majority of meat eaters, but since meat and enriched soy milk are the only good, common sources of B12 I know of... Well, maybe I'm biased, 'cause I got a little anemic because I wasn't careful with my B12 a few months ago.

Quote from: A on March 22, 2012, 10:38:08 PM
Ehm, saturated fats, if I understand well, aren't useful, but tend to come with some nutrients absent from healthy oils? This is he first I've heard of it. It's very surprising, since I've never seen any mention on Health Canada / Nutrition Facts' pages that saturated fats could in any way be useful when I searched for a school project... Any info? (Non-"page 494" info, please. o.o)

Reading what I wrote, it is kind of unclear what I meant. Saturated fats themselves aren't useful. Ideally you should be getting less than 7% of your daily calories from it (So using the  2000 calorie diet as an example you should limit yourself to less than 16g). What I was getting at was that a lot of the natural sources of saturated fats can also be good natural sources for things like fatty acids or B12.  Most of these can be gotten elsewhere, since almost everything these days can be enriched (like the b12 added into your soy milk) or from vitamin supplements. Like I said before, most of your daily fat should be monounsaturated or polyunsaturated, but that doesn't mean you have to avoid saturated fats altogether.

Im also really sorry to hear about your B12 problems, can be scary stuff indeed.

Do you have examples of nutrients bound more to saturated fats than unsaturated? I fail to see any. All the liposoluble vitamins I can think of come in natural, non-enriched oils. o.o

Quote from: A on March 22, 2012, 12:52:29 PM
I want to second that. Meat, especially, is globally hurtful on your health (considering, of course, you get all the nutrients from somewhere else), especially if you eat lots of it. And even more if it's red meat. But past basic health, I'm sure the more you get, the easier it is for your muscles to maintain their mass. Meat, if we forget the fat, is just a big lump of huge (excessive?) amounts of protein, after all.

Protein (meat) is important in maintaining health of skin, hair, and nails. Without proper amounts of protein, you will not have the keratin necessary to maintain health of these. Your hair will fall out, your skin will become more fragile and the possibility of getting infections of the skin increases (which can lead to permanent scarring), your nails will grow very slowly, and what is produced will be brittle and very thin. If I'm not mistaken, there are studies out that link lack of meat to degeneration of the brain. Proteins are the building block of life and the results of deficiency outweigh any muscle it may maintain, in my opinion.

All things in moderation, as my very petite best friend says when we talked about eating meat in class.

And for those promoting to take keratin supplements, hair requires 19 amino acids to make. While the body produces most of them, you can't get them all through keratin supplements alone.

One can get adequate protein without meat; just saying. :) I don't eat a lot of meat, although I'm not officially vegetarian (lots of tofu and alternatives).

Maybe so, but people are acting like protein is the devil. And there is no more efficient way to get it than to eat meat.

Quote from: A on March 22, 2012, 08:02:49 PM
Anyway, I read something interesting about meat. Actually, inherently, it actually is bad for the health. Nearly all the fat there is in meat (and there is always some) is saturated or trans. And both of these have been proven, I think, to not only be damaging when taken in excess, but to actually always be noxious, no matter the dose (prior to reading that, I thought saturated and trans fats were nutrients we needed, but in very small amounts, like sodium). (Of course, a very low amount has super low impacts, I guess). This is what makes every "writer" I've read think that meat is unhealthy all the time. Of course, it's not poison, but I read it's a hindrance to the body.

Quote from: A on March 22, 2012, 11:56:05 PM
Do you have examples of nutrients bound more to saturated fats than unsaturated? I fail to see any. All the liposoluble vitamins I can think of come in natural, non-enriched oils. o.o

Quote from: Alexis on March 22, 2012, 11:43:29 PM
What I was getting at was that a lot of the natural sources of saturated fats can also be good natural sources for things like fatty acids or B12.

I'm not saying (or don't think I'm saying) that saturated fats are bound to essential vitamins or minerals. Saturated fats tend to be more dominant in animal fats as you pointed out before, of course there are exceptions, palm kernel oil and coconut oil being good examples. Animal products (which contain more saturated fat in general; especially when compared to seed oils for example, which are better sources of unsaturated) can be excellent sources for some of your macronutrients and micronutrients, and that's what I'm trying to say. Of course I am talking about non-enriched, non-fortified products here, because you can add anything to anything, and then you can take a multivitamin on top of that to supplement your intake. I'm not saying that animal sources of these nutrients are better or anything, just in terms of serving sizes some animal products, that are naturally higher in saturated fats, have more of some of your nutrients per serving that non-animal products. Specific examples of some nutrients

Calcium - strong bones and teeth, helps with the immune system. Deficiency can lead to osteoporosis. Dairy products are often fairly high in calcium, but there are lots of other good sources for it in things like almonds, spinach, salmon. If you want really good examples look up whole milk (01211) and plain yogurt (01117) here: http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/SR24/reports/sr24fg01.pdf (http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/SR24/reports/sr24fg01.pdf)  Sure you can just drink skim milk or eat non-fat yogurt and get the same results without the saturated fat, but what I'm trying to talk about is sources in their more basic forms. Otherwise you can add too many variables and then you could bring it all the way to just braking things down into their vitamin and mineral compounds, take it all in pill form, and fill your daily needs with protein supplements and empty calories, like junk food. Plus I think whole milk tastes better anyway :)

Iron - Iron is helps with oxygen transport, as well as regulates cell growth and differentiation. A deficiency of iron limits oxygen delivery to cells, resulting in fatigue, poor work performance, and decreased immunity. On the other hand, excess amounts of iron can be toxic. Iron is actually found in both animal products and vegetable products. There actually is a difference between animal sources and non. Animal sources have what is called heme iron, which is a derivative of red blood cells. Heme iron is more efficiently absorbed than non-heme iron but vitamin c and meat proteins can help with the absorption of non-heme iron (heme iron absorption is not dependent on diet) - more on iron can be found at http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/iron/ (http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/iron/)

B12 - required for proper red blood cell formation, neurological function, and DNA synthesis. As I said before B12 isn't generally found naturally outside of animal products. There are some yeasts and other things that do contain B12, but outside of that B12 is in other foods because its fortified. B12 is water soluble so it is not bound to saturated fats or any fats whatsoever. It is found in meats and fish though which do have saturated fats in them. Again this is really only a concern for people who omit animal products; even vegetarians who eat eggs or drink milk won't have much trouble getting to their daily needs without even thinking about it much. The link supporting this is in my previous post.

Zinc -  Good for your immune system. Found a lot in meats, cheeses, oysters, etc. Its also found in water and in cereal grains and rice, so its likely something that you're not going to be deficient in. There is an upper limit to zinc, which can lead to problems, but again in general its not much of a problem. And of course there are some medical exceptions to take more than the upper daily limit for your zinc.

These aren't all the examples, there's vitamin d, riboflavin, and others, but its definitely a start. But like I said before,

Quote from: Alexis on March 22, 2012, 11:43:29 PM
Saturated fats themselves aren't useful. Ideally you should be getting less than 7% of your daily calories from it

Its the fact that a lot of foods that contain saturated fats also contain these nutrients.
If you want specific examples on everything the USDA ARS comes out with an annual report (I think its at the end of September) that can be found on their site. Here's a link to the reports for the foods listed by their single nutrient levels. http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=22114 (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Services/docs.htm?docid=22114)

****All I'm really trying to get at is that meat isn't evil or unhealthy from a nutrition standpoint (I'm not supporting the idea of having steak dinners for every meal because that's not healthy, nor am I getting into animal rights, etc. way too much for me). The over-arching key to good nutrition is simply make sensible choices, in moderation. Protein, Carbs, and Fat are ALL important in a healthy diet, even if its a diet where your intent is to lose weight. It doesn't matter so much if you're getting them from plants or animals, just make sure you get them. And IF you're planning on eliminating things from you diet, in the case of vegetarianism or veganism, make sure you know what nutrients you're actually eliminating so that you can make sure to get them elsewhere, as there's pretty much an alternative source for everything.****

:)

Thanks, Alexis. I understand better. What you meant was that sources of saturated fats are often also sources of those nutrients.

Alainaluvsu: Actually, there is. Quinoa is the current best source of complete proteins (just like in meat) that we know. And instead of meat's saturated fats, it contains fibre and other nutrients. (And if you want my opinion, it's FREAKING DELICIOUS as basis for a salad. Tastes a little sweet, and a little halzenut-ish. <3) There's also hemp, which is a great food nutritionally speaking, but since its main use is recreational and illegal (it's the same plant we call "marijuana"), it tends to be hard to find, since its very production is still prohibited in many countries. Though I hear there are now a few (closely watched) farms that produce hemp for eating in western Canada.

I've been on HRT for 12 months and I've lost 1 inch from my bicep measurement in that time.  I have lost half a stone of weight so that will also be a factor for my data.

My arms are still a bit bulky for my liking but I do seem to be losing the unwanted mass.  I have no idea if toning exercises would speed this process up or down so I'm not doing any of that - as time plus hrt will certainly do it eventually!

It seems to me that there is more than one theory and a lot of this has to do with heredity.  I seemed to have lost a lot of my old muscle mass since I have been on hormones for about three years.  The problem is I due to HRT (or perhaps it's my OCD meds?) I have gained 30 or 35 pounds of fat.  I have gone from a comparatively svelte 155 pounds (as in my photo) to about 190.  :(  I'm only 5'7'; in fact not even quite that.  I do have broad shoulders, but really.  With the lost muscle I'm sure that I would look great at about 147; but, especially with my appetite, I don't ever think I'll see that that weight again, *sigh*.

Cut your normal food intake by about 400 calories, or about 20% of your normal amount of food. Do "marathon cardio" type running or jogging every once in a while. Also, try to cut out some if not most of the protein from your diet. This should be done only temporarily, and if you're getting dark urine, you will want to lower the intensity of your exercise, because you kidneys could be damaged from filtering huge amounts of muscle by-products from the bloodstream. This will help out.

P.S. The less muscle mass you have, the lower your metabolism becomes.