Best way or exercises to burn FAT

snaffleschips

Looking a question answered and also looking for suggestions to the title question.

My question was is it a good time to exercise when you are feeling hungry. Because your body will use your fat storage to get you through your session? Is that true?

And all suggestions welcome also.

Ri_Nollaig

No...

Exercising hungry or not, is not going to make much of a difference.
Losing fat is done only by having a calorie deficit diet. Nearly anything you will read on it will suggest that your diet will contribute as much as 80-90% of what you are trying to achieve either gaining or cutting. So it doesn't matter how you spread your calorie intake over the day, 3 large meals, 6 small, etc etc.
If anything having something small before hand might give you a better workout then not.

In saying that, best exercise to burn fat?
Will anything that gets your heart rate up. Cardio would certainly be the easiest to get going in but weight training actually burns fat (...and gains muscle) faster. It increases your metabolism. Try the barbell squat
Just remember though, that exercise should be seen as the supplement to your diet when you are trying to lose weight.

You need you diet in check first before you will see any progress. You will never out train a bad diet. Use myfitnesspal to log everything you are eating and see how your macros break down. Find out your maintenance calories and reduce by about 15-20% (don't go any lower then that). You will see progress if you can stick to that, combine it with exercise then to "tone up".

Will Heffernan

snaffleschips wrote: »

My question was is it a good time to exercise when you are feeling hungry.

It's always a good time to exercise.

With 'fasted' cardio you are talking about a trade off.

Fasted cardio = On the plus side you have a slightly higher % of preferential fat usage but it isn't hugely better than non fasted cardio. On the negative side the intensity and duration of exercise may be lessened.

Non fasted cardio = The opposite of above.

So yes, fasted cardio may use 'fat' as a slightly higher contributory energy source BUT you may actually end up burning more fat by doing your exercise non fasted but at a higher intensity.

Because your body will use your fat storage to get you through your session?

Your body is always using fat for energy...the contribution is just altered depending on the 'current' state of your energy stores at the time.

Is that true?

Kind of...but probably not in the way you are alluding to here.

shikaakwa312

No dont train when hungry you will become burnt out and lose energy. Plus your body burns the most amount of calories during your workout and within 30 minutes afterwords so you need the calories to function your brain and muscles. Studies have been done that show that eating 30 minutes before a workout actually can aid results- obviously not conclusive but it shows that it doesn't matter if you have eaten recently. But the worst thing is to be hungry during training or not eat afterwords. Because ingesting food increases metabolism. Heres why: its a natural reactant of our body to store food if we dont eat for survival skills, why we can last 40 days or whatever it may be, so when you dont eat you slow down your metabolism. You should eat 5-6 nutritious meals a day and never be hungry for a training session and never go hungry afterwords. So your body will actually do the opposite of your hypothesis- it will stall your energy sources not letting you get the full effect and slow down your metabolism.
Source: college soccer player had to go to various nutrition clinics and whatnot

Will Heffernan

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

No dont train when hungry you will become burnt out and lose energy.

Actually that's not necessarily true. Fasted cardio can actually be useful in the 'right' circumstances.

Plus your body burns the most amount of calories during your workout

This bit is true.

and within 30 minutes afterwords

This is really dependent on the form, intensity and duration of exercise and is certainly not even close to the significance of calorie burn during exercise.

so you need the calories to function your brain and muscles.

Nope. That isn't true. Basic sedentary metabolic function at rest can be amply met by fat stores even in lean individuals for a week or two...again dependent on the form, intensity and duration of the exercise that was undertaken. I am going to just assume that the OP isn't talking about being hungry from a couple of weeks of fasting.

I would also point out that 'hunger' isn't necessarily related to the state of the glycogen stores in an individual.

Studies have been done that show that eating 30 minutes before a workout actually can aid results-

Are you saying that eating 30 minutes before a workout can aid in fat burning? I'd like to see a link to that study?

obviously not conclusive but it shows that it doesn't matter if you have eaten recently.

Again if you are saying that it aid in body fat loss or in the preferential use of adipose tissue during exercise I would like to say that.

But the worst thing is to be hungry during training or not eat afterwords. Because ingesting food increases metabolism. Heres why: its a natural reactant of our body to store food if we dont eat for survival skills, why we can last 40 days or whatever it may be, so when you dont eat you slow down your metabolism.

Ahhhh nope. Well ingesting food increases metabolic function but most of the rest of what you said is various shades of wrong.

You should eat 5-6 nutritious meals a day and never be hungry for a training session and never go hungry afterwords. So your body will actually do the opposite of your hypothesis- it will stall your energy sources not letting you get the full effect and slow down your metabolism.
Source: college soccer player had to go to various nutrition clinics and whatnot

None of that is actually true. Meal frequency barely matters in 'average' individuals only calorie and macronutrient content really. Periods of hunger will have almost no measurable effect on basal metabolic rate. It certainly won't slow down or break you metabolisms.

shikaakwa312

Is the fact that I am a triathlete, former college soccer player, or have been to various nutritional clinics with university research false as well? Show me a source that refutes one thing i said.

dor843088

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Actually that's not necessarily true. Fasted cardio can actually be useful in the 'right' circumstances.

This bit is true.


This is really dependent on the form, intensity and duration of exercise and is certainly not even close to the significance of calorie burn during exercise.


Nope. That isn't true. Basic sedentary metabolic function at rest can be amply met by fat stores even in lean individuals for a week or two...again dependent on the form, intensity and duration of the exercise that was undertaken. I am going to just assume that the OP isn't talking about being hungry from a couple of weeks of fasting.

I would also point out that 'hunger' isn't necessarily related to the state of the glycogen stores in an individual.


Are you saying that eating 30 minutes before a workout can aid in fat burning? I'd like to see a link to that study?


Again if you are saying that it aid in body fat loss or in the preferential use of adipose tissue during exercise I would like to say that.


Ahhhh nope. Well ingesting food increases metabolic function but most of the rest of what you said is various shades of wrong.


None of that is actually true. Meal frequency barely matters in 'average' individuals only calorie and macronutrient content really. Periods of hunger will have almost no measurable effect on basal metabolic rate. It certainly won't slow down or break you metabolisms.

Yet another post from will heffernan using perfect grammar quoting sections of another post stating how each section is totally wrong . Shock!

shikaakwa312

So much for credibility^^^

Will Heffernan

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Is the fact that I am a triathlete, former college soccer player, or have been to various nutritional clinics with university research false as well? Show me a source that refutes one thing i said.

OK. I will actually take the time to do that since you asked and then we can let people judge for themselves.

While I am doing that maybe you could do the same so people could compare or research and arguments side by side?

shikaakwa312

I love how your right "that bit is true" about the fact that people burn calories during exercise. Thanks for that. No, Ill be right here waiting for your baseless arguments.

Will Heffernan

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

I love how your right "that bit is true" about the fact that people burn calories during exercise. Thanks for that. No, Ill be right here waiting for your baseless arguments.

As I said in another thread here on boards.

I will make time over the weekend to point out all the things that are incorrect in his statements and do what he hasn't done and that is to back it all up with research.

It seems fine for everyone else here to make complete unsupported and incorrect statements but if I wish to point out people are incorrect I have to document my statements with research and references.

In this case I am happy to do so. Then we can see who's right and who is wrong.

runawaybishop

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

You should eat 5-6 nutritious meals a day

You should eat what you need to eat - having it in 3 meals or 6 makes bugger all difference.

thegreatiam

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

I love how your right "that bit is true" about the fact that people burn calories during exercise. Thanks for that. No, Ill be right here waiting for your baseless arguments.

If you're asking for his sources then you should also be bringing your sources I'm sorry but:

Source: college soccer player had to go to various nutrition clinics and whatnot

Is not a valid source for anything. In fact if I ever read the word "whatnot" in a source, I tend to look elsewhere.

shikaakwa312

Oh it took a while to find those facts huh? A nice weekend project for you thats grand Im glad Im the one who is incorrect though when you cant find your facts in 10 minutes when you are already at a computer. How long does google take, come on now?

thegreatiam

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Oh it took a while to find those facts huh? A nice weekend project for you thats grand Im glad Im the one who is incorrect though when you cant find your facts in 10 minutes when you are already at a computer. How long does google take, come on now?

tell us and bring your facts too.

shikaakwa312

All the stuff i said was general, amateur info. i gave to someone who seemed like a novice and that he could easily stick to and that can be googled in a heartbeat. Im the defendant here so he makes his case first. Sorry for my grammer ill try to do better next time.

the groutch

Ri_Nollaig wrote: »

Losing fat is done only by having a calorie deficit diet.

What???

Will Heffernan

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

All the stuff i said was general, amateur info. i gave to someone who seemed like a novice and that he could easily stick to and that can be googled in a heartbeat. Im the defendant here so he makes his case first. Sorry for my grammer ill try to do better next time.

That's fine. Like I said, I'll make the time to point out all the stuff that isn't correct.

It would be easier if you just gave me some links to the studies you discussed?

If you aren't willing or able to clarify your statements or to give us a link or reference to the studies you alluded to in your post then I'll just have to make some assumptions based on what you said.

thegreatiam

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

All the stuff i said was general, amateur info. i gave to someone who seemed like a novice and that he could easily stick to and that can be googled in a heartbeat. Im the defendant here so he makes his case first. Sorry for my grammer ill try to do better next time.

even amateurs can back up correct information using google.

A lot of what you mention is broscience and myth. I'm very amateur and i know this.

as an amateur I know that fasted cardio can help burn body fat, as the body has no ready source of carbs to use as energy.

As an amateur I know that eating 5/6 meals a day is nonsense. Your body works 24 hours a day 7 days a week, if you had to eat 5/6 times a day to keep it going our species would have died off eons ago since food is not always readily available.

As an Amateur I know that weight lifting an other similar exercise increase your metabolism and continues to burn higher level of calories for hours after finishing a work out. Much more than a session on the treadmill.

Source: this forum mostly, and google ofc, but also I frequently work out fasted and feel fine. (i like anecdotal evidence too).

shikaakwa312

Let me get this straight...

1) You ridicule every sentence of my helpful, accurate post. 2) Then when confronted, claim you will provide research showing why i am wrong. 3) Then say no you go get your research because after 10 minutes you came up with nothing. 4) Then grant yourself to put words in my mouth when everything i said was rather clear.

I was just scrolling along another thread and it seems as though you get into these quite often. Not only do i question your knowledge about health, but now i question you as a person. And better yet you have your disciples trying to get me to provide sources when you came up empty.

runawaybishop

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

All the stuff i said was general, amateur info. i gave to someone who seemed like a novice and that he could easily stick to and that can be googled in a heartbeat. Im the defendant here so he makes his case first. Sorry for my grammer ill try to do better next time.

There's a lot of bad/incorrect info in the googliser though.

shikaakwa312

thegreatiam....as great as you probably are you should probably let this man fight for himself and you just detract from the actual issue at hand. You are trying to make a sad attempt at attacking my grammar and "whatnot" and verbage. PM me when you do an iron man and maybe i could house you up in the states or something...or that may be too anecdotal...

Ri_Nollaig

the groutch wrote: »

What???

Want to add anything more to that...? Are you disputing it or did you just stop reading there?

Will Heffernan

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Let me get this straight...

1) You ridicule every sentence of my helpful, accurate post. 2) Then when confronted, claim you will provide research showing why i am wrong. 3) Then say no you go get your research because after 10 minutes you came up with nothing. 4) Then grant yourself to put words in my mouth when everything i said was rather clear.

I was just scrolling along another thread and it seems as though you get into these quite often. Not only do i question your knowledge about health, but now i question you as a person. And better yet you have your disciples trying to get me to provide sources when you came up empty.

Look...I won't get into a back and forth here...as much as I'd like to.

I will do exactly what I said. I will take the time in this instance to point out a exactly what I think is erroneous in your post and I will provide references to back up my view.

All I was saying is that you mentioned a number of studies that supported your statements and views and all I was saying was that I'd like to see them.

shikaakwa312

No, because then it will turn into you attacking my sources and we will never see your side (which you claimed was so strong about an hour ago but if it was we would already have seen it). Do what you said you would. Be a man, or a bro as your friend would say.

shikaakwa312

half-hour ago*, im sure the great will get on me about that one...

runawaybishop

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

half-hour ago*, im sure the great will get on me about that one...

Are you just trying to get peoples backs up, or are you trying to help the OP?

thegreatiam

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

thegreatiam....as great as you probably are you should probably let this man fight for himself and you just detract from the actual issue at hand. You are trying to make a sad attempt at attacking my grammar and "whatnot" and verbage. PM me when you do an iron man and maybe i could house you up in the states or something...or that may be too anecdotal...

I didnt attack your grammar once.
I pointed out that whatnot is hardly an accurate scientific term.

And i'm not defending Will in any way. But if you are going to demand someone show research then you'd better be able to back up your statements too.

save your whatnots and other broscience for elsewhere.

shikaakwa312

Look at the history of this thread and you tell me. Did i initiate any confrontation whatsoever? OP said all suggestions were welcomed. I'm actually a nice guy and never am confrontational but I hate it when uneducated people completely tear someone's argument up without any backing and then continue to detract from the issue with petty b.s. Maybe we will have a scientific breakthrough from Mr. Heffernan, who knows? Btw, your information about waiting to eat for 2 hrs after training in the other thread was idiotic but I decided not to address it and instead respond to the OP. Did I not? Go look at that thread as well, you clearly took my words and I did not even entertain your thoughts and instead directly told the OP that turkey is a good protein and that it has tryptophan. Go read it.

runawaybishop

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Btw, your information about waiting to eat for 2 hrs after training in the other thread was idiotic but I decided not to address it and instead respond to the OP. Did I not? Go look at that thread as well, you clearly took my words and I did not even entertain your thoughts and instead directly told the OP that turkey is a good protein and that it has tryptophan. Go read it.

That was me, not thegreatiam. You need to read more carefully.

shikaakwa312

Exactly you need to read more carefully, I posted it to you. Look at the time reference- it was posted like 10 secs after the GREAT. Plus, you asked me if i was up hear just to get up peoples backs and thats what i responded to. You need to read more carefully. Honestly go ahead and read what I said.

runawaybishop

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Exactly you need to read more carefully, I posted it to you. Look at the time reference- it was posted like 10 secs after the GREAT. Plus, you asked me if i was up hear just to get up peoples backs and thats what i responded to. You need to read more carefully. Honestly go ahead and read what I said.

Quotes are useful in showing who you are replying to. In this example I am replying to you. You can tell because I quoted you. You aren't backing any of your arguments up.

shikaakwa312

Thats how I know you arent credible and now this has become personal. You attack me wrongly on a friggin name, are you joking? I figured you would be able to read, sorry about that.
TO THE OP: Go to bodybuildingforum

This thread will not produce you any results unfortunately because people are too sensitive, close-minded, and judgmental.

runawaybishop

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Thats how I know you arent credible and now this has become personal. You attack me wrongly on a friggin name, are you joking? I figured you would be able to read, sorry about that.
TO THE OP: Go to bodybuildingforum

This thread will not produce you any results unfortunately because people are too sensitive, close-minded, and judgmental.

I figured you, as a top class ironman partaking nutrional - lecture attending - athlete, would be able to back up what you claim is true.

This is a discussion forum, dont be surprised when people discuss the things you post, such as your misleading advise.

Will Heffernan

I will start with your last erroneous statement first and work my way back up to the top.

You should eat 5-6 nutritious meals a day and never be hungry for a training session and never go hungry afterwords. So your body will actually do the opposite of your hypothesis- it will stall your energy sources not letting you get the full effect and slow down your metabolism.
Source: college soccer player had to go to various nutrition clinics and whatnot

Jeukendrup AE, Jentjens R. Oxidation of carbohydrate feedings during prolonged exercise : current thoughts, guidelines and directions for future reseacrh. Sports Med (2000) 29 (6):407-24.

This study actually took subjects that had at least 1 year of resistance training experience...which in these studies is a rarity...they had a roughly 300 calorie surplus and consumed 1.7g/kg of protein and this was divided over either 3 or 6 meals a day. The subjects had the same training program for 12 weeks and body composition and weight was measured...the group that actually gained the most muscle mass was actually the 3 meals a day group.

Tipton KD et. al. Stimulation of net muscle protein synthesis by whey protein ingestion before and after exercise. Am J Physiol Endocrinal Metab. (2007) 292 (1):E71-6

In this study...subjects were either given 3 meals a day or 6 meals a day with identical protein and calorie intakes (does this sound familiar ) and absolutely no difference in nitrogen balance was found....the same study also looked at groups with varying protein distributions through out the day and again...no difference was found.


Cribb PJ and Hayes A. Effects of supplement timing and resistance exercise on skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. (2006) 38 (11):1918-25

In this study guys were given 1800 calories and 118 grams of protein in either 1, 3 or 6 meals a day....results anyone? That's right...no differences at all were found in nitrogen balance....or weight loss or fat loss for that matter. In this very same study nutrient utilisation was was looked at under the same conditions and found that there was no difference between 1, 3 or 6 meals.

It wasn't consider statistically relevant but the only group that showed any real difference was the group that had 1 meal a day...the difference being that the group that went the longest without food and was the hungriest actually had the greatest fat loss and highest metabolic rate.

I could keep going but I want to give each of your erroneous points equal time and it is going to take me ages to correct your entire post like this.

ElWalrus

Personally, I don't think eating 5/6 meals a day would have that much of an impact on your metabolic rate. Just reasoning it out, I couldn't see what kind of advantage that would have been to our ancestors during our evolution. Why punish the guys who could find food more easily by requiring them to find even more food.

In a modern context, where the 'little and often' approach to eating might be of benefit is helping prevent you from building up a ravenous appetite and then gorging your self when you finally did get to eat (i.e. stop you from eating more calories than you needed).

Just my thoughts on it.

thegreatiam

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Look at the history of this thread and you tell me. Did i initiate any confrontation whatsoever? OP said all suggestions were welcomed. I'm actually a nice guy and never am confrontational but I hate it when uneducated people completely tear someone's argument up without any backing and then continue to detract from the issue with petty b.s.

That's exactly what you did, you said eat 5/6 times a day, a theory that makes no sense whatsoever and was debunked an age ago.you said don't eat before bed, which is jibberjabber. you said eat immediately (within 30 minutes) after working out. Which we all know doesn't really make much difference and the window is actually much longer. You actually said it was the most important thing, when clearly it isn't.
all without providing a stick of reference, yet all these myths have been dis proven time and time again. So it leads me to believe that your sources are comically out of date or you just overheard it from some other wannabe coach. and the only source you 'reference' is you played soccer so you went to a nutrition talk. Really? that's a source now? I visited the planetarium once, maybe ill become an astronaut.

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Btw, your information about waiting to eat for 2 hrs after training in the other thread was idiotic but I decided not to address it and instead respond to the OP. Did I not? Go look at that thread as well, you clearly took my words and I did not even entertain your thoughts and instead directly told the OP that turkey is a good protein and that it has tryptophan. Go read it.

I have no idea what youre talking about here. Do you need a lie down?

shikaakwa312

tryptophan is an amino acid associated with sleeping. we were discussing it on another thread. That was directed at runawaybride but you were too dumb to notice

shikaakwa312

Im done here this is useless and it has turned into attacking me (the funniest part is that i was just trying to be helpful- and share what i have learned over the many years), good luck everyone. Will Heffernan PM me if you ever decide to get results and ill take a look.

runawaybishop

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

tryptophan is an amino acid associated with sleeping. we were discussing it on another thread. That was directed at runawaybride but you were too dumb to notice

No need to insult me.

Instead, i will insult your research, which is shoddy, shoddy, shoddy.


Turkey the Sleep Inducer?

As it turns out, turkey contains no more of the amino acid tryptophan than other kinds of poultry. In fact, turkey actually has slightly less tryptophan than chicken, says Dawn Jackson Blatner, RD, LDN

thegreatiam

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

tryptophan is an amino acid associated with sleeping. we were discussing it on another thread. That was directed at runawaybride but you were too dumb to notice

I'm to dumb to notice? some cheek on you. Im not the one spouting broscience from 30 years ago like its gospel. oh wait, its from an unreferenced thread. I get it, you love to talk about things without referencing them.

Or wait, did you learn it at an iron man event you attended. lol.

In case you don't know, playing football, and going to a lecture once do not replace knowledge, in fact that they make up a nice afternoon, that is all.

btkm8unsl0w5r4

OP at what level are you. Concerning yourself with these small things I most likely not as important as other bigger factors. Sometimes I think the strength coaching and elite fitness community overcomplicate something pretty basic, as the are concerned with minute differences that matter not one jot to the ordinary joe.

Guys...stop the weirdness on the thread, too much test on the go maybe.

thegreatiam

runawaybishop wrote: »

No need to insult me.

Instead, i will insult your research, which is shoddy, shoddy, shoddy.


Turkey the Sleep Inducer?

As it turns out, turkey contains no more of the amino acid tryptophan than other kinds of poultry. In fact, turkey actually has slightly less tryptophan than chicken, says Dawn Jackson Blatner, RD, LDN

see that, that's a source.

Or would you prefer SOURCE: I had turkey for christmas once, and fell right asleep after it.

runawaybishop

thegreatiam wrote: »

I'm to dumb to notice? some cheek on you.

He's talking to me now - he hasn't realised he needs to quote. Someone should tell him.

thegreatiam

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Im done here this is useless and it has turned into attacking me (the funniest part is that i was just trying to be helpful- and share what i have learned over the many years), good luck everyone. Will Heffernan PM me if you ever decide to get results and ill take a look.

share what exactly, myths that were debunked before the advent of the internet, that any 10 year old child could tell you were wrong?
that's not being helpful that's hindering someone by providing misinformation.

If that's what you have learned over many many years then i truly pity your teachers. I hope you were good at football in college, cos clearly your grades were lacking.

Oryx

shikaakwa312 wrote: »

Im done here this is useless and it has turned into attacking me (the funniest part is that i was just trying to be helpful- and share what i have learned over the many years), good luck everyone. Will Heffernan PM me if you ever decide to get results and ill take a look.

In fairness, you were the one asked to back up some questionable remarks which are generally held to be baseless, and you were the one who turned it into an argument, insulting others.

Oryx

OP, what it comes down to is simply this. Training hungry could make you loose more fat, but it could also mean you dont train to your potential because, well, youre hungry. As fitzgeme (and of course Will, right at the start) said, if youre starting out, dont overcomplicate things. Worry about the minutiae when you plateau in your training or weight loss.

jt72

thegreatiam wrote: »

Or would you prefer SOURCE: I had turkey for christmas once, and fell right asleep after it.

You had a Christmas where all you ate was Turkey? I'm not trolling, but the fact that you had turkey and fell asleep means these are related (perhaps on only this occasion) and not evidence that turkey makes you sleep.

I'm not even saying turkey does or does not put you to sleep, but associations/relations does not equal evidence or proof.

runawaybishop

jt72 wrote: »

You had a Christmas where all you ate was Turkey? I'm not trolling, but the fact that you had turkey and fell asleep means these are related (perhaps on only this occasion) and not evidence that turkey makes you sleep.

I'm not even saying turkey does or does not put you to sleep, but associations/relations does not equal evidence or proof.

That was the joke. A poster was stating that turkey had an effect on sleep, which was debunked and then some anecdotal "evidence" posted.

thegreatiam

jt72 wrote: »

You had a Christmas where all you ate was Turkey? I'm not trolling, but the fact that you had turkey and fell asleep means these are related (perhaps on only this occasion) and not evidence that turkey makes you sleep.

I'm not even saying turkey does or does not put you to sleep, but associations/relations does not equal evidence or proof.

Thanks man, i was getting worried there. But I never said I ate it.

jt72

I have fought the bulge for about the past 6 years. I counted calories and ran marathons. My best success has come from changing what I eat. I shifted from a normal 'healthy' diet to one that focusses more on protein, fat, and get carbs from vegetables and fruit instead of refined sources. Call it paleo, call it primal, call it atkins... it's something like that.

In my experience, and from the evidence I've read, exercise is a small factor in weight loss. Exercise often induces a response that increases appetite. Exercising at low HR for extended periods of time (up to 2 hours) - like a long walk, jog or bike ride - MAY be beneficial in terms of weight loss.

I read a couple of Gary Taubes books recently, and he does a good job of presenting evidence that refutes many ideas behind conventional wisdom diets (low fat, high carb, calorie restricted) and proposes that diets higher in protein and fat are more successful at weight loss/maintenance.

The point I made above about turkey is ripped off from one of those books...