BuffedWildCat’s BodyBlog

So far so good, I definitely made some progress! I’m actually more happy with the way I look than the actual numbers. I look much more defined than I did a month ago. So the bottom line is that over the past month I’ve lost fat, 1.05 lbs to be exact, and gained muscle, .55 lbs to be exact. So overall I would say my diet worked well, but now it’s time to take it up a notch and get this fat loss going more quickly. Now is the time when I will just be trying to RETAIN the muscle I have built whilst getting rid of the fat.

Here are the numbers:

Current weight = 136.5 lbs, down from 137 lbs
Body Fat = 18.79% (still a ways to go), down from 19.48%
Lbs of Fat = 25.64, down from 26.69
Lean Body Mass (muscle) = 110.86, up from 110.31

Overall I guess I’m pretty happy.

than an "unclean" diet AND cardio!

Aug 28, 2006 thru Feb 11, 2007

I lifted 3 days a week and did cardio 3-4 times per week, later increasing it to 4-5 days per week.  My cardio consisted of a combination of several hours of roller skating at the local skating rink usually twice a week, hiking the mtns in western NC with my son in the backpack for HOURS (usually all day) at a time, and using my nordic track skier and power rider for 20-30 min each (one session).

My diet was not what I would consider to be clean as far as getting ready for a BB competition goes, nor was it nearly as bad as the typical American eats (like a lot of processed foods, fast food, sweets, etc.)  I basically stayed away from processed foods most of the time, white flour, sugary stuff, but I still ate pizza sometimes, still ate very low sugar cereals sometimes, had a cheat like chocolate or ice cream about once every two weeks, basically a diet that I could live on for the rest of my life, not too restrictive but not like a typical American’s diet either.

Here are the numbers for that 5 month period:

Average calories = 2217
142g protein
219g carbs
92g fat

Ratio = 26%P/35%C/37%F

I was comfortable on that (as can be anyway, I still always feel like eating more).

My bodyfat at the beginning of that 5 month period AND at the END of that 5 month period was 19%.  My bodyfat DID NOT BUDGE during that entire time.  That basically tells me that realistically, I cannot live a comfortable life AND be as lean as I want at the same time.  I want to be leaner than 19% and discovered that it is not possible for ME without getting more restrictive than is comfortable for me to live day in and day out for the rest of my life.

So #1 PLEASE let that be a lesson to all you women out there who are trying to achieve the practically impossible or at least know that it is NOT PRACTICAL, it is NOT REALISTIC to expect to look like all the fitness and BB competitors you see 24/7.  The female body just was NOT MADE to stay that lean.

#2  My second point to all this is coming up…

Feb 18, 2007 thru March 18, 2007

Started preparing for my first bodybuilding competition.

My training consisted of 4 days of weight training (so one more day than the previous 5 months), and just TWO days of cardio.  I love roller skating (I actually inline skate) so I was just session skating at the local skating rink twice a week for my cardio.  Of course how much time I actually spent skating would vary depending on how many songs they played that I like to skate to and how much I just hung out in the DJ both talking to friends.  But basically I toned it down some from the previous 5 months, took it easier, less skating, a bit more talking, plus my legs have been so fatigued from the weight training it’s another reason my actual skating time was less.  K, so two days of cardio and 4 days of weight training, so less cardio but one added day of weight training, keep that in mind.

I started preparing for my first bodybuilding competition so I put myself on a stricter diet, basically CLEANED it up.  I’ve been eating ONLY the following, ONLY:  eggs, egg whites, oatmeal, PB, butter, sweet potatoes, brown rice, spinach, cauliflower, broccoli, Optimum Gold Standard Whey Protein, calcium caseinate, amino acids, vitamins & minerals, about 1 gallon of water a day, green tea sweetened with stevia, 1 tbsp sugar free syrup for my oatmeal, pink salmon, and chicken.  So as you can see, there aren’t very many foods listed, which means I eliminated A LOT from my diet.  Now, here are the numbers.

Average calories = 2241
220g of protein
161g of carbs
81g of fat

Ratio = 39%P/26%C/32%F

AND GUESS WHAT??!!

I LOST 1.05 lbs of fat AND GAINED .55 lbs of muscle!!!  Now, I realize that is not a BIG change especially when you look at my bodyfat numbers which went from 19.48% on 17 Feb and is now 18.79%.  BUT, progress always IS SLOW when you are BOTH losing fat AND gaining muscle at the same time.

So I have several important points to make:

#1  I WAS [B]EATING[/B] SLIGHTLY [B]MORE[/B] AND DOING [B]LESS CARDIO[/B] AND I MADE PROGRESS UNLIKE THE FIRST 5 MONTHS WHEN I WAS EATING SLIGHTLY LESS AND DOING WAY MORE CARDIO!!  I did more weight training and less cardio and I made some progress!

#2  It isn’t just the beginners who can gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.  I have been lifting for about 7 years, living the BB lifestyle.

#3  IT REALLY IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS CALORIES IN VS CALORIES OUT!!

The numbers aren’t a big change but if you see the difference in my progress pictures from 16 wks out to my latest 12 wk out pics, you can see a HUGE difference in the way I look (as soon as I actually post them, hehe).

So anyway, this information teaches some very valuable lessons and so I wanted to share.  Stay tuned for those progress pics, I’ll get them posted when I get a chance.

Krispy Kreme has introduced a whole wheat, caramel-flavored glaze doughnut, containing 180 calories. In comparison, a Tim Hortons honey-dipped yeast doughnut has 210 calories, and a Krispy Kreme "cookies and kreme" doughnut has 400 calories.However, health experts have pointed out that the new doughnut is not `healthier’ so much as it is ‘less unhealthy.’

Krispy Kreme has been experiencing slipping sales since the advent of the low-carbohydrate diet movement. It has also faced an accounting scandal. Its stock price, which once reached a high of over $50, fell to only $4 in 2006.

USA Today March 1, 2007

The Toronto Star February 27, 2007

PR Newswire February 26, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

This is the most ludicrous example of a company seeking to take advantage of the health food market that I have seen to date. It is patently obvious to anyone but the ill-informed that whole-wheat doughnuts aren’t a shred healthier than the regular ones.

Doughnuts made the top of my list of the five absolute worst foods you can eat, and that applies to this latest health-bandwagon marketing ploy as well. In addition, as long as you continue to eat foods like doughnuts, there is a strong likelihood you will continue to crave them.

One of the best ways to stop these cravings is to stop eating these foods altogether. The hormones insulin and leptin are likely a large part of the physical reasons for your cravings, especially for high-carbohydrate foods.

By the way, another snack-food giant, Hostess, has also just joined the calorie-conscious fray, introducing 100-Calorie Packs of three tiny cupcakes, marketed as portion-controlled convenience.

Why all the interest?

According to a recent study, 79 percent of restaurant patrons are concerned about the fat content in the foods they eat and 73 percent are worried about calories. That’s no surprise at all, considering a third of the average American’s daily calories come from foods eaten outside the home.

One of the best ways to optimize your health and live longer: Spend some serious time in the kitchen preparing your own food. And, you can find and afford healthier foods — even on a budget — if you know where to look.

On Vital Votes, Trish from Dublin, Ohio points out the upside of this news:

“Well, the good news is that we are making an impact on the food industry. They know that we are serious about getting the word out. We are exposing them for what they are: money hungry mongrels who will stop at nothing in the name of the almighty dollar!

“These doughnuts, along with so-called ‘organic’ oreos, show that large companies have become aware of an educated consumer base. No, they are still not good for us. WE know that, but unfortunately, millions of consumers will take that as a green light to continue their horrific eating habits, guilt free.

“But it’s a start. We need to keep doing what we are doing now, and continue to put pressure on the food industry to clean up the trans fats and other unhealthy ingredients, entirely.

“A year ago, many large grocery chains, Giant Eagle being one of them, had little to no organic foods to offer. Now, they have  four aisles, an entire freezer section and a whole dairy case dedicated to healthy foods. Why? Because  millions of Americans (like all of us here) have put the pressure on …

“As ridiculous as whole wheat, low cal Krispy Kreme doughnuts are, they are a sign … a HUGE sign that we are being heard!”

Other responses to this article can be viewed at Vital Votes, and you can add your own thoughts or vote on comments by first registering at Vital Votes.

©Copyright 2007 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.

Based on recent reports, attorneys are warning food manufacturers to think twice before automatically adding caffeine to their mix of health-harming processed foods and drinks. Excessive caffeine consumption may be a growing problem.A review of records from a regional poison control center in Chicago found 265 cases of caffeine intoxication, including 31 hospitalizations and 20 ICU admissions. Most were sickened by caffeine taken in the form of dietary supplements, medications, or energy drinks.

Caffeine is being added to a growing number of products, including sports drinks, energy drinks and gels, caffeinated waters, and fruit juice. So far, the FDA has had little interest in regulating its use.

Symptoms of caffeine intoxication include insomnia, heart palpitations, tremors, sweating, nausea, diarrhea, chest pain, and neurological symptoms.

Food Navigator USA.com February 27, 2007

KansasCity.com February 9, 2007

Dr. Mercola’s Comment:

I’m not surprised to learn energy drinks were among the primary culprits. Energy drinks may contain as much as four times more caffeine than the average sugary sweet drink.

California toxicologists have seen problems among patients who consumed the caffeinated energy drink Redline, which, bizarrely enough, is promoted by its makers as “a freaky scientific breakthrough” and actually healthy because it is “the first physique-transforming matrix to coax your body to burn fat through the shivering response.”

Unbelievable …

Many of us would love to have a boost in our energy levels periodically — just beware that energy drinks aren’t your best bet for that. It is far wiser to address the underlying reasons why you do not have as much energy as you would like.

For many, it is likely due to a combination of factors including: poor food choices, low-quality food, stressful lifestyles, unhealed negative emotional events, and lack of optimal sleep and exercise.

In addition to the caffeine overload, it’s important to stay far away from drinks spiked with sugars that raise your insulin levels, contributing to a host of diseases and accelerating aging.

On Vital Votes, nutrition coach Josh Rubin from San Marcos, California adds:

“These drinks are a scam to get people to keep coming back. Americans are so tired that they actually need this stuff to live. When you eat sugar, gluten, etc. your body releases opiates. Then when you stop drinking this crap, you body craves it and you need more.

“Sugar inhibits the immune system, and we wonder why America is so ill?

“My recommendations:

“1. Water is the only thing our body was designed to drink.

“2. If it has an ingredient that you cannot pronounce, don’t drink it.

“3. If it is the same color as a highlighter, don’t drink it.

“4. If it was not here 10K years ago, don’t drink it.”

Other responses to this article can be viewed at Vital Votes, and you can add your own thoughts or vote on comments by first registering at Vital Votes.

©Copyright 2007 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.

Crops genetically modified to have reduced susceptibility          to pests are promoted as a solution to low food yields in developing countries.          The motive of these promoters is profit, not altruism.

Monsanto, one of the largest developers of genetically          modified crops, has developed a grain that gives an improved crop and          is sterile, so instead of keeping back some seeds for the next year’s          sowing, farmers must return to the supplier for more.

In view of this unbridled commercial approach to genetic          modification, it is perhaps not surprising that companies have paid little          evident attention to the potential hazards to health of genetically modified          foods.

But it is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration          has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992.          They announced in January this year, “FDA has not found it necessary          to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered          plants . . . consistent with its 1992 policy.”

The policy is that genetically modified crops will          receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other          new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that          specific risks may exist.

For instance, antibiotic-resistance genes are used          in some genetically modified plants as a marker of genetic transformation.          Despite repeated assurances that the resistance genes cannot spread from          the plant, many commentators believe this could happen.

Of greater concern is the effect of the genetic modification          itself on the food. Potatoes have been engineered with a gene from the          snowdrop to produce an agglutinin which may reduce susceptibility to insects.         

In April last year, a scientist, Arpad Pusztai, from          the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, UK, unwisely announced on television          that experiments had shown intestinal changes in rats caused by eating          genetically engineered potatoes.

He said he would not eat such modified foods himself          and that it was “very, very unfair to use our fellow citizens as          guineapigs.”

A storm of publicity overtook Pusztai. He was removed          from his job, a sacrifice that did not quell public alarm in the UK or          in Europe.

Last week (May 22, p1769 ) the Royal Society had reviewed          what it could of Pusztai and colleagues’ evidence and found it flawed,          a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists          who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work.         

The British Medical Association called for a moratorium          on planting genetically modified crops. The UK Government, in accordance          with national tradition, vacillated. Finally, on May 21, the Government          came out with proposals for research into possible health risks of genetically          modified foods.

Shoppers across Europe had already voted with their          feet. By the end of the first week in May, seven European supermarket          chains had announced they would not sell genetically modified foods.

Three large food multinationals, Unilever, Nestlé,          and Cadburys-Schweppes followed suit. The Supreme Court in India has upheld          a ban on testing genetically modified crops.

Activists in India have set fire to fields of crops          suspected of being used for testing. The population of the USA, where          up to 60% of processed foods have genetically modified ingredients, seem,          as yet, unconcerned.

The issue of genetically modified foods has been badly          mishandled by everyone involved. Governments should never have allowed          these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing          for effects on health.

The companies should have paid greater attention to          the possible risks to health and of the public’s perception of this risk;          they are now paying the price of this neglect.

And scientists involved in research into the risks          of genetically modified foods should have published the results in the          scientific press, not through the popular media; their colleagues, meanwhile,          should also have avoided passing judgments on the issue without the full          facts before them.

The Lancet Volume          353 29 May 1999

©Copyright 2005 Dr. Joseph     Mercola. All Rights Reserved.

Distrust over genetically modified (GM) foods in Japan deepened     on June 21 after the third recall in less     than a month of snack products containing unapproved     gene-spliced potato.
Japan’s Bourbon Corp. said it had voluntarily     recalled some of its snack products after traces of unapproved     NewLeaf Plus™ potato were detected.
The new rules set zero tolerance     for imports containing unapproved gene-altered products and require     mandatory labeling for approved GM products.
Bourbon said it was recalling its “Potelka” snack produced     before June 1, after tests for both NewLeaf Plus™ and NewLeaf     Y potatoes turned out positive.
Sales of the Potelka products totaled 1.1 billion yen (US$8.9 million)     in the 2000/01 fiscal year, against the company’s total sales of     86.47 billion yen, a company spokesman said. The recall was expected     to cost the company about 80 million yen.
Potelka was made from potato ingredients     imported from the United States with certificates that showed they     were non-GM products, he said.
The NewLeaf varieties, developed by leading US agricultural biotech     firm Monsanto Co. to protect potatoes from insects and potato viruses,     have not been approved in Japan.
The discovery of StarLink™ in food products last October by     Friends of the Earth had prompted     Japan, where StarLink™ is not approved even for animal feed,     to distrust US corn and cut its buying.
Japan, which imports 4 million tons of corn for food use each year     and another 12 million tons for animal feed, is the biggest buyer     of US corn.
In South Korea, the Korea Corn Processing Industry Association,     which imports 2 million tons of corn a year for food use, has already     shunned US corn at its import tenders.     Korea imports another 6 million tons a year for animal feed.
Concern about StarLink™ grew after the South Korean government     detected traces of it early this year in some corn imports that     carried official US non-StarLink™ certificates.
StarLink™, made by Franco-German biotech firm Aventis SA to     fight a destructive pest known as the European corn borer, has not     been approved by US regulators for human consumption because of     fears over potential allergic reactions.
Reuters June 22, 2001

Most US citizens are absolutely oblivious to the GM food issue     and are not aware that these products are banned in many overseas     countries.

This recent slip-up will have nearly nine million dollars of     potato snacks recalled. No problem, as readers of this site will     know that potatoes are not that great a food for most of us, especially     in its highly processed form.

However, add genetic engineering to the equation and you create     a real potential for significant problems down the road.

If you are not familiar with the GM food issue please review     some of the links below.

For a great resource to help find products whose manufacturer’s     have pledged to avoid the use of GM products, see Greenpeace’s     True Food Shopping List.

For more information about GM foods and to become active in     getting them off the shelves, or at least labeled, try the following     sites:

Keep Nature Natural - http://www.keepnatural.org/

The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods -   http://www.thecampaign.org

Genetically Engineered Food Alert - http://www.gefoodalert.org

Friends of the Earth - http://www.foe.org/

Organic Consumers Association - http://www.purefood.org/

©Copyright 2007 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.