Re: [知識] 節食一定掉肌肉?
看板FITNESS作者elguapo (HPHT Synthesized)時間7年前 (2017/02/25 01:09)推噓26(29推 3噓 67→)留言99則, 21人參與討論串2/4 (看更多)
為了端正風氣,在下決定花錢去看最原始的論文(版權因素只略顯示本文幾行,
請版上大德見諒):
http://imgur.com/a/SGUiW
※ 引述《circlelee (非斷不可)》之銘言:
: 節食一定掉肌肉? 原則可能是如此,但節食再加上重訓呢?
: i'm sorry,答案可能不是如你想的那樣。來看下列的研究,看是不是肌肉掉光光。
: http://cristivlad.com/resistance-training-under-caloric-
: restriction-enhances-muscle-maintenance/
: Resistance Training under Caloric Restriction Enhances Muscle Maintenance
: 受試者
: 40 obese women, randomly assigned to four different groups
: 四組
: 控制組 control (C)
: 節食組 diet without exercise (DO)
: 節食加重訓組 diet + weight training (DPE)
: 重訓組 weight training without diet (EO)
: 時間
: 8-week weight-loss study
: 節食餐
: Subjects' baseline energy requirements were calculated at 2,200-2,500 kcals
: per day and then reduced by 1,000 kcals for the calorie restricted groups.
圈李沒寫到的是:
The specific dietary protocol was a modification of the dietary
exchange program of the American Diabetes Association in which
subjects choose foods from different categories.
The nutritionally balanced diet consisted of 50% carbohydrate,
27% protein, and 23% fat and included a daily protein supplement.
而這個 protein supplement 是:
Protein supplements were given to the two diet groups to ensure protein
intake >=1.0 g/kg body wt. The protein supplement, taken with 8 oz
(0.24 L) nonfat milk, supplied 25 g/d of high-quality protein (60% of
recommended dietary allowance [RDA]) and ~50% of the RDA for vitamins
A, B-6, B12, C, D, and E and three minerals: calcium, iron, and
phosphorus.
您看看,這麼重要的敘述被圈李忽略?這麼大量(確保每日都有 >=1g/kg)的
蛋白質以及必要營養素在支持著 DO 以及 DPE 兩組人... 如果沒有這個蛋白質
的量以及營養素來實施低熱量攝取加重訓呢?
: 重訓菜單
: As for the exercising protocol, the subjects from EO and DPE had to do
: resistance training 3 times a week. Each session included:
: – bench press
: – inverse leg press
: – lateral pulldown
: – biceps curls
: – triceps extension
: – calf raises
: – leg extension
: – hamstring curl
: They had to do 3 sets of each exercise: the first 2 sets consisting of 10
: repetitions, while the last set required doing repetitions to failure. Once
: the subjects were able to complete more than 12 repetitions in the third set,
: resistance (load) had to be increased. I suspect they were shooting for
: anaerobic training.
: 結論
: 請看連結裡的圖示,有用紅筆圈起來
: 控制組什麼都沒啥變
: 節食組瘦了4-5kg,但也確掉了1kg肌肉
: 重訓組體重沒啥變,肌肉成長了1kg
: 最精采的節食加重訓組呢?
: 體脂掉最多,但肌肉卻沒啥動,還稍微增加了一點點
: 也就是說跟節食組比,肌肉沒掉
: 跟重訓組比,卻減了很多脂肪,可以說同時結合了這兩組的優點
: 而且節食加重訓組的力量跟純重訓組也差不多,都提升了一些,比控制組跟節食組高
直接說論文最後的結論:
An important finding of this study is the lack of interaction
between the diet and exercise treatments (Table 6). The data
suggest that the order of presentation of the treatments would
not greatly affect the end result. For example, one could reduce
caloric intake for 8 wk and then resistance weight train for 8 wk
and obtain the same results as found by dieting and exercising
concurrently.
Support for this position can be found in Tables 1, 3, and 4 where,
in most cases, adding the DO and EO group changes yields a result
very similar to the DPE group changes.
簡譯:飲食控制(低卡)與運動(重訓)無互動關係。您可以先飲食控制
八週然後恢復正常飲食運動八週,所得的結果是與同時飲食控制加重訓
相同。
所以您也別急著開心,畢竟這個實驗只是為了證明飲食控制與運動兩者是
獨立事件,那個先做那個後做,跟同時做的結果相同,但請別忘了,這個
實驗在飲食控制方面非常嚴謹,尤其是低卡組有蛋白質及營養素的補充。
: 筆者最後也有提到
: Had these subjects have their dietary protocol optimized away from a
: high-carb regimen, I suspect results would've been even more significant.
: What I am eager to see is studies conducted on healthy lean adult subjects
: following a well formulated low calorie high-fat (60%-70%), low protein
: (15%-25%), very-low-carb (10-15%) ketogenic protocol (keto-adapted would be
: even better) doing resistance weight training in comparison with other
: significantly different protocols.
: 似乎暗示生同或低碳飲食的效果會更不一樣。
: 有人認為我是節食加重訓,ok有這樣的研究,不掉肌肉有很意外嗎?
這個實驗的對象是 40 位女性,身體密碼如下:
Forty obese female subjects (mean ± SEM, weight = 75.1 ± 1.1 kg,
percent fat = 35.9 ± 0.9%, height = 166.4 ± 1.4 cm,
age = 32.9 ± 1.5 y).
Vlad 君只是好奇如果實驗改成清瘦的成人使用低熱量高脂低蛋白非常低碳水
的飲食加重訓會有什麼結果,不代表他有什麼奇特的暗示。
: 很有趣的是這段,筆者說.....
: Caloric restriction is uncool. It usually leads to increased hunger, bad
: mood, and cold limbs among others (not if you're keto-adapted). Plus, the
: power of the supplement industry and bro-science were almost always dictating
: the trend. If you don’t train 3-4 times a week 1-2 hours every session and
: if you don’t consume a ton of protein, you will lose muscle and you will die
: (please excuse my sarcasm).
: 哈哈,真的滿好笑的。
我不知道到底是誰笑誰,但看到一篇實驗摘要就高潮才令我想笑。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 36.225.199.1
※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/FITNESS/M.1487956164.A.4ED.html
推
02/25 01:37, , 1F
02/25 01:37, 1F
→
02/25 01:38, , 2F
02/25 01:38, 2F
→
02/25 01:39, , 3F
02/25 01:39, 3F
→
02/25 01:43, , 4F
02/25 01:43, 4F
沒錯!這是重點中的重點!
※ 編輯: elguapo (36.225.199.1), 02/25/2017 01:59:17
推
02/25 02:05, , 5F
02/25 02:05, 5F
推
02/25 04:24, , 6F
02/25 04:24, 6F
→
02/25 04:25, , 7F
02/25 04:25, 7F
推
02/25 07:16, , 8F
02/25 07:16, 8F
推
02/25 07:18, , 9F
02/25 07:18, 9F
→
02/25 08:23, , 10F
02/25 08:23, 10F
這份研究本來就不是討論 fasting 或是 keto,為何您要硬扯上邊呢?
既然您也有了原始論文,為何不好好的仔細看完?
→
02/25 08:24, , 11F
02/25 08:24, 11F
→
02/25 08:25, , 12F
02/25 08:25, 12F
推
02/25 08:26, , 13F
02/25 08:26, 13F
推
02/25 08:29, , 14F
02/25 08:29, 14F
→
02/25 08:50, , 15F
02/25 08:50, 15F
我引述您的原 post 當時,沒有原文 PDF 的 URL,事後再加的心態?
推
02/25 09:09, , 16F
02/25 09:09, 16F
→
02/25 09:10, , 17F
02/25 09:10, 17F
※ 編輯: elguapo (36.225.199.1), 02/25/2017 09:31:10
推
02/25 09:33, , 18F
02/25 09:33, 18F
按照這人在這版的 credit,每篇文都要懷疑是刻意誤導 XDD
※ 編輯: elguapo (36.225.199.1), 02/25/2017 09:52:56
→
02/25 09:52, , 19F
02/25 09:52, 19F
您既然可以找到 Mr. Vlad 的 blog,那麼我決不信找不到 Vlad 君所引用
論文的來源。
※ 編輯: elguapo (36.225.199.1), 02/25/2017 09:57:00
→
02/25 11:00, , 20F
02/25 11:00, 20F
→
02/25 11:01, , 21F
02/25 11:01, 21F
→
02/25 11:01, , 22F
02/25 11:01, 22F
→
02/25 11:02, , 23F
02/25 11:02, 23F
→
02/25 11:03, , 24F
02/25 11:03, 24F
→
02/25 11:04, , 25F
02/25 11:04, 25F
→
02/25 11:04, , 26F
02/25 11:04, 26F
→
02/25 11:04, , 27F
02/25 11:04, 27F
→
02/25 11:05, , 28F
02/25 11:05, 28F
→
02/25 11:07, , 29F
02/25 11:07, 29F
→
02/25 11:09, , 30F
02/25 11:09, 30F
推
02/25 11:12, , 31F
02/25 11:12, 31F
→
02/25 11:12, , 32F
02/25 11:12, 32F
→
02/25 11:14, , 33F
02/25 11:14, 33F
還有 29 則推文
推
02/25 13:08, , 63F
02/25 13:08, 63F
推
02/25 13:14, , 64F
02/25 13:14, 64F
→
02/25 13:14, , 65F
02/25 13:14, 65F
→
02/25 13:15, , 66F
02/25 13:15, 66F
→
02/25 13:17, , 67F
02/25 13:17, 67F
推
02/25 13:18, , 68F
02/25 13:18, 68F
→
02/25 13:19, , 69F
02/25 13:19, 69F
推
02/25 13:20, , 70F
02/25 13:20, 70F
→
02/25 13:20, , 71F
02/25 13:20, 71F
→
02/25 13:24, , 72F
02/25 13:24, 72F
→
02/25 13:24, , 73F
02/25 13:24, 73F
推
02/25 13:42, , 74F
02/25 13:42, 74F
推
02/25 13:53, , 75F
02/25 13:53, 75F
推
02/25 19:35, , 76F
02/25 19:35, 76F
推
02/25 19:56, , 77F
02/25 19:56, 77F
→
02/25 21:54, , 78F
02/25 21:54, 78F
推
02/26 12:23, , 79F
02/26 12:23, 79F
→
02/26 13:41, , 80F
02/26 13:41, 80F
→
02/26 13:42, , 81F
02/26 13:42, 81F
→
02/26 13:43, , 82F
02/26 13:43, 82F
研究論文是保證 >=1g/kg,除了 supplement 之外,還有每天熱量中 27% 的
蛋白質(要我回推一天吃多少克才能“保證” >=1g/kg 嗎?)
您為什麼老是去看底線呢?難怪一天到晚被砲。
→
02/26 13:44, , 83F
02/26 13:44, 83F
→
02/26 13:44, , 84F
02/26 13:44, 84F
→
02/26 13:45, , 85F
02/26 13:45, 85F
→
02/26 13:47, , 86F
02/26 13:47, 86F
噓
02/26 13:50, , 87F
02/26 13:50, 87F
→
02/26 13:50, , 88F
02/26 13:50, 88F
→
02/26 13:50, , 89F
02/26 13:50, 89F
→
02/26 13:51, , 90F
02/26 13:51, 90F
→
02/26 13:51, , 91F
02/26 13:51, 91F
→
02/26 13:52, , 92F
02/26 13:52, 92F
推
02/26 13:54, , 93F
02/26 13:54, 93F
→
02/26 13:55, , 94F
02/26 13:55, 94F
→
02/26 14:05, , 95F
02/26 14:05, 95F
→
02/26 14:07, , 96F
02/26 14:07, 96F
請再回去看清楚論文的立意和結論,懶得解釋了。
→
02/26 14:35, , 97F
02/26 14:35, 97F
推
02/26 14:41, , 98F
02/26 14:41, 98F
→
02/26 14:43, , 99F
02/26 14:43, 99F
※ 編輯: elguapo (1.163.168.51), 02/26/2017 14:53:36
討論串 (同標題文章)