Jump to content
Ankur123

Noor neiu soovib alandada rasvaprotsenti

Recommended Posts

Tere!

Olen 16 aastane neiu, 170 cm pikk ja kaalun 51,5 vahest paar grammi rohkem või vähem. Rasvaprotsendi kalkulaatoriga mis internetist leidsin arvutasin protsendiks 15% ja ma ei arva et seda liiga palju oleks lihtsalt ma tahaks seda alandada, et lihased välja paistaks. Olen teinud 3 aastat järjest koguaeg trenni, ka enne seda tegin trenni aga vahepeal jäi aastake vahele. 2 Aastat käisin rühmatreeningutes (Combat,pump ja mingi tantsuline trenn) kõige rohkem käisin esimeses. Nüüd olen käinud aasta kikkpoksis. Vähemalt 3 korda nädalas. Arvutan oma igapäevast kaloraaži http://tap.nutridata.ee 'ga, aga seal näitab alati et söön liiga palju rasvu. Soovitatav on 25-35% aga minul kipub olema 36,5-40%. Valke on soovitatud 10-15% aga need lähevad ka vahest kuni 18% peale. Kuigi kaloreid tarbin vähem kui peaks. Kuidas saaksin lihased rohkem nähtavale tuua ehk siis rasvaprotsenti alandada?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Äkki keegi oskab seljuhul öelda millised oleks õigemad soovitused? :)

Naiste puhul on madal rasvaprotsent suhteliselt raske ettevõtmine, sest käib tunduvalt rohkem "looduse" vastu, kui meeste puhul. Pole muidugi võimatu. Peamine on ikkagist kaloraaž viia allapoole kulutusi, et keharasv põletama hakkaks. Vajalik on samas valkude, rasvade ja ka süsivesikute õige kogused, et kaalu-kaotus toimuks peamiselt rasva arvelt. Ära protsentides liiga kinni ole, kuna sõltuvalt kehakaalust ja energia-kulutusest, trennidest, võib see olla veidi eksitav.

Valke tarbi 2-2.5g kehakilo kohta, mida karmim dieet, seda suurema otsa number olema peaks. Ehk pos. kaloraažis olles on ka see 2g kehakilo kohta piisav, kui aga ränk dieet siis 2.5g pigem asja eest.

Rasvu 1g kehakilo kohta, kui võimalik. Lühiajaliselt võib ka veidi enam alla kiskuda. Piisav rasvade tarbimine hoolitseb hormonaalsüsteemi korraliku toimimise eest, seega liialt alla kiskudes teed enda eesmärkide saavutamisele hoopis karuteene.

Süsivesikutega on vabamad käed, kuigi üldjuhul tuleks ka nende number suhteliselt kõrge hoida kaloraaži võimalikkuse piires. Sest eriti intensiivse treeningu puhul on nad peamiseks energia-allikaks. Nende puudumine võib viia kehvade trennideni, mis omakord kehva lihasmassi kasvu/säilimiseni. Lisaks mõjutab süsivesikute tarbimine ka tuju ja üldist energiatunnetust ja isegi und. Seega jällegi, piirates võid olla tujukas, väsinud ja magada halvasti.

Vali endale kaloraaž mida järgida. Pane paika valgud, rasvad ja süsivesikud vastavalt mu soovitustele. Järgi kaalunumbrit ja peegelpilti. Olenevalt muutustest reguleeri kaloraaži tasapisi soovitud suunas. Alati vali pigem aeglane areng, mitte kiirustamine. Sest kiirelt tehtud vorm on enamasti lühiajaline ning üldine kasutegur kulutatud aja suhtes on väike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aitäh sisuka vastuse eest! :)

Aga sellest ei saa ma aru, et kust ma peaksin saama 128,75g valke? Nutridata järgi on juba 65,5g liiga palju... Ja rasvu peaksin siis sööma umbes 51,5 g? Seda tundub kuidagi vähe, sest mul läheb alati üle. Kas ma ei tohiks siis üldse võid ega suhkrut süüa? Mind huvitab kas vee joomine aitab ka kaasa? Praegu üritan päevas vähemalt liitri tarbida. Nutridata järgi on mu päeva soovitatav energia kogus 2425kcal, minuarust liiga palju, tarbin sellest umbes 1700kcal. On minu tarbitud liiga palju?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aitäh sisuka vastuse eest! :)

Aga sellest ei saa ma aru, et kust ma peaksin saama 128,75g valke? Nutridata järgi on juba 65,5g liiga palju... Ja rasvu peaksin siis sööma umbes 51,5 g? Seda tundub kuidagi vähe, sest mul läheb alati üle. Kas ma ei tohiks siis üldse võid ega suhkrut süüa? Mind huvitab kas vee joomine aitab ka kaasa? Praegu üritan päevas vähemalt liitri tarbida. Nutridata järgi on mu päeva soovitatav energia kogus 2425kcal, minuarust liiga palju, tarbin sellest umbes 1700kcal. On minu tarbitud liiga palju?

Kui sööd rohkem rasva siis pole sellest midagi hullu. Minu poolt antud numbrid on soovituslikud miinimumid, mitte maksimumid. Küll aga valku liiga vähe tarbides võid oma lihasmassi arengut tagasi hoida. Kuna rasvades on kaloreid palju siis ongi üks võimalus rasvu veidi vähemaks võtta, kui sul neid niigi üleliiga tuleb, ning selle asemel valgud kõrgemale tõsta. Ma ei saa aru mida suhkur asjasse puutub, sest suhkur ei ole rasv. :)

Sobilik kaloraaž on subjektiivne. See sõltub eesmärkidest ja hetke seisust.

Vee joomine on eluks vajalik, aga selle vajaduse määrab suures osas janu. Sportides oleks siiski soovitav juua veidi rohkem enne, peale ja treeningu ajal, sest janu ei pruugi anda piisavalt kiiresti märku suurenenud vee-vajadusest, ning ilma piisava veeta võib treeningvõime langeda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasutaja ROtter antud artiklis oli kirjas, et valke ei tohiks üldse nii palju süüa. Ei saa enam üldse aru mida siis tegema peaks, et rasvaprotsenti ikka väiksemaks saada..? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kasutaja ROtter antud artiklis oli kirjas, et valke ei tohiks üldse nii palju süüa. Ei saa enam üldse aru mida siis tegema peaks, et rasvaprotsenti ikka väiksemaks saada..? :)

Söö söö, ära karda. :D

Kaalus võtad alla, kui kaloraaž on defitsiidis. Et põleks rasv, mitte lihas, siis pead tegema trenni ja sööma õigesti, see eeldab kõrgeid valgu-koguseid. -2.5g kehakilo kohta. Ning rasva võiks olla ca. 1g kehakilo kohta. Muud polegi midagi keerulist.

See Rotteri poolt väljatood artikkel veidi naljakas jah. Ühest küljest nagu ütleb ka, et kuni 2.4g valke kilo kohta. Siis ütleb, et üle 15% pole nagu vajalik, siis jälle, et kuni 35% on okei. Suht segaselt kirjutatud, aga noh - elab üle.

Edited by Archangel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aitäh, et vastata viitsid :)

Aga ma ei oska kuskilt võtta neid valke nii palju ..

No kuidas ei oska. :)

Liha, kala, muna, piimatooted ja ka mujal. Pakk kohupiima on ca. 30g valku. 100g liha on üldiselt 13-25g valke olenevalt lihast. Pakenditel kõik kirjas. Ma ise söön päevas 1kg kana ja saan sealt ca. 200g valke, pluss veel kohupiima. Kuna sul valku ka tunduvalt vähem vaja siis peaks olema ju lihtne. :)

Sööd näiteks ühe 400g kanaliha paki ära, saad sealt mingi 60-100g valke, siis sööd paki kohupiima, kodujuustu näiteks ja ongi olemas. Nipet näpet tuleb kõikjalt mujal ka veel.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Söö söö, ära karda. :D

Kaalus võtad alla, kui kaloraaž on defitsiidis. Et põleks rasv, mitte lihas, siis pead tegema trenni ja sööma õigesti, see eeldab kõrgeid valgu-koguseid. -2.5g kehakilo kohta. Ning rasva võiks olla ca. 1g kehakilo kohta. Muud polegi midagi keerulist.

The Institute of Medicine reports that your brain uses roughly 117 to 142g of glucose daily, which comes from your diet and liver production of the sugar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROtter ei lingi kuigi asjalkke artikleid viimasel ajal :)

See Vomaxi "valguvajadus on ülehinnatud" ja Otsuse "valgul ja valgul pole eriti vahet ja sojavalk on sama hea" ignoreerivad hulka uuringutulemusi.

Vadakuvalk kusjuures on eriti alahinnatud ja peaks minu teooria kohaselt kaitsma isegi Alzheimeri eest. Suhkruhaigusest rääkimata.

Livestrongi artikkel oli asjalik.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROtter ei lingi kuigi asjalkke artikleid viimasel ajal :)

See Vomaxi "valguvajadus on ülehinnatud" ja Otsuse "valgul ja valgul pole eriti vahet ja sojavalk on sama hea" ignoreerivad hulka uuringutulemusi.

Vadakuvalk kusjuures on eriti alahinnatud ja peaks minu teooria kohaselt kaitsma isegi Alzheimeri eest. Suhkruhaigusest rääkimata.

Livestrongi artikkel oli asjalik.

Sa ei oska ka puzzlet iseseisvalt kokku panna ja õigeid asju välja lugeda. :blink:

Ülaltoodust võiks teha järgmised praktilised järeldused:

1. Liigse valgu tarbimine (s.o üle 2 g/kg) ei anna tulemusi, sellega toodame vaid energiat. Energia tootmiseks sobivad aga paremini süsivesikud.

2. Ühe toidukorraga üle 20-30 g valgu tarbimine ei anna samuti mingeid tulemusi, seda eriti kiirelt seeduvate (nt vadakuproteiin) valkude puhul.

3. Tuleb arvestada, et seedeprotsessi kiireks toimimiseks on vajalik ja oluline ka rasvade ja süsivesikute optimaalne tarbimine.

Teemaalgataja on tütarlaps, kaalub 50 kg, kui palju tal lihast on, siin soovitab mõni tal valgu norme, mis sobivad kulturistidele ja pealegi tegeleb tütarlaps kickpoksiga.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valkude tarbimise spetsiifika on laias laastus oletamised veel. Seega ma ei näe põhjust mitte tarbida igaks juhuks veidi rohkem, kui vbl vaja on. Eriti kuna valgu suurem tarbimine dieedi ajal on niikuinii ka näljatundele üldiselt parem. Sobiliku kaloraaži puhul on vaevalt puudusi rasvadest ja süsivesikutest.

Eric Helms kirjutas Facebooki ühe huvitava posti valkude vajalikkuse kohta:

Eric Helms Context is hugely important here. Big issue with many studies on protein is that the intervention is not always representative of the type of training the folks being studied regularly do. That's why sometimes an observational study tells us something interesting. For example' date=' Celejowa and Homa in 1970 (had a hell of a time getting full text on this one) looked at sub elite olympic weight lifters during a training camp, following their regular training, guys were eating at roughly maintenance, some slightly above, slightly below, and found that 4 out of 10 were in a negative NBAL eating 2.0-2.2g/kg (or ~1g/lb). And remember, NBAL underestimates protein requirements slightly if anything, and is really telling you more of a functional minimum, not optimal intake.[/color']

Then there is Maestu 2010, looking at drug free bodybuilders for 11 weeks before competing where they ate 2.5-2.6g/kg of protein, followed their own training, and for the whole group on average we saw losses of lean that were not statistically significant...although individual effects varied.

Mettler had a pretty good training intervention, so I would say 2.3g/kg tells you something there as well, but worth pointing out, in Celejowa, 2.0-2.2g/kg was seen as a minimum, and in Mettler there were more LBM losses at 2.3g/kg than there were in Maestu at 2.5-2.6g/kg.

So really it just needs context to interpret. My personal interpretation, is if you are a casual lifter, not trying to maximize gains, maybe not training with very high intensity or volume, you are eating significantly over maintenance calories and your bodyfat is over 15% or so, then yeah you would probably be fine with 1.5g/kg or so.

But if you are lean gaining, or cutting, and training hard, and you have a bodyfat percentage that is athletic, you might be better off at higher intakes. Just gotta look at your situation. But for so many folks in bodybuilding training, you are training hard, decently lean, and in a small surplus at maintenance or in a small to hefty deficit, I would probably look at 2.0-2.6g/kg as a more appropriate range based on the limited data we have.

Edited by Archangel
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Veidi veel...

Eric Helms Menno,

First off I just want to say much respect for your willingness to talk about this all, I really enjoy discussions like this and I think everyone benefits :)

Wanted to address a couple things you directed to me.

I'm not sure we can ever eliminate the need for paying attention to context. A study can only tell you something if the researchers measured that variable. For example on the topic of body composition, if stats aren't ran to find correlations between protein and body comp, a study can't tell you this data. Also, a study can be only be inferred to the population it is targeting, and if certain aspects of that population aren't taken into consideration the results will require the appreciation of context. For example, if you just studied protein intake in athletes, with no attention to type of sport, magnitude of calorie surplus/deficit, body composition etc. you might get some data that is being skewed by variables you didn't think to account for.

To illustrate this point, and to address your comment that it is "practically impossible to lose weight and not LBM in resistance trained athletes", check out these two studies done on the same group of subjects by Garthe et al in 2011:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21558571

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21896944

The first study was done on elite athletes from a range of sports, all following a weight loss diet for 4-12 weeks. Protein was set to 1.6g/kg and then a deficit was created, primarily through fat reduction to maintain carbohydrate levels, and they divided the subjects into two groups determined by the target rate of weight loss; .5kg/week and 1kg/week. In the .5kg/week group, we actually see an increase in LBM. However in the 1kg/week group we see maintenance and loss of LBM. As you read further into the results and start looking at subject characteristics, you can actually see that the leaner subjects in the 1kg group lost LBM. In the second study (following up on the same subjects), more data is given and we see a discussion of training volume. For some folks, the level of resistance training they did in their sport was a lot. Others, not much. It was the folks who increased training volume, were higher in bodyfat percentage, and followed a less severe caloric restriction who gained LBM. While it was the experienced lifters, lower in body fat percentage, following a more aggressive caloric deficit that lost LBM. So context really does matter here, because the researchers weren't even examining protein, and they weren't examining body comp, yet the data is there for analysis. So really, we have to look at the broader context any time we evaluate a study, since no one study is going to draw correlations between every variable of interest, and no one study can examine every possible permutation of populations who might be consuming protein under different conditions.

As to experience level and protein intake, I think I was not clear. I don't think more advanced athletes need more protein. I was suggesting that if training is not set up to create a high level of adaptive stimulus you won't need as much protein, since protein turn over would not be as high. That was the intended point I wanted to make in the example I used. Alan brought this up in the roundtable discussion; if you have a study were you put novices and experienced lifters on the same training program, it very well might be enough to create an adaptive stimulus in novices but not nearly enough to do the same in the experienced lifters. So, a difference of protein turnover betwen them might not be indicative that experienced athletes need less protein, it just might be indicative that only a training program that elicits adaptation will require extra building material to support this, which is quite logical when you think about it.

Eric Helms As far as differences in body composition effecting protein metabolism I think that is quite well established, both more globally, and more mechanistically. Besides the two studies I posted above by Garthe et al 2011a, 2011b, some studies of bodybuilders during competition also show greater lean body mass losses as prep continues. Granted you can't just attribute this to body composition as often training volume increases and food intake decreases with shifts in macronutrient composition. But there is also the papers by Forbes and Hall; "Forbes theory", based on weight loss studies, being that the lower your body composition the greater the percentage of LBM loss is incurred during weight loss. The question posed is: can a higher protein intake offset this and how does it scale with body composition? We don't have an answer to the second part of the question, but the sports nutrition community is more and more in agreement about protein needs being increased during a caloric deficit, with a recent review paper by Phillips et al 2011 (probably the most prolific protein researcher) stating that 1.8-2.7g/kg is likely appropriate during a caloric deficit.

More mechanistically, check out Elia et al 1999, it showed that during periods of fasting, protein losses and the percent of energy derived from protein are two to threefold less in obese subjects than in lean subjects. The results also show that urinary nitrogen excretion is twofold less in obese subjects, and lean subjects contribute twice as much protein to glucose production compared to their obese counterparts. Furthermore, in the first few days of starvation, leucine oxidation increases in lean individuals but not in obese individuals.

So clearly there is a difference caused by body composition, how much is certainly up for debate.

As to your comment about statistics. I really don't think we have crappy journals in the fitness industry per say, but we do have low impact journals. That being said, impact factor is not a measure of quality but rather a measure of importance. I think it's a given that a niche science like exercise science would have much lower impact factors than something like environmental science or biology. But that is not a reflection of quality but rather impact. In fact sports medicine, only has an impact factor of 5.2, but it is the highest impact factor among all the fitness industry related journals (and happens to be extremely high quality as well). Oddly enough, sports statistician Will Hopkins, who is currently pioneering magnitude based stats in the field of sports science (for the reasons I stated before) is a reviewer for Sports Medicine. I think this is interesting based on your evaluation of the statistical approach as low quality, not something tha meshes with Sports Med being the best journal in the field.

I think this approach is particularly appropriate for practioners, since a study with this statistical analysis tells them something they can use. "Statistically significant" doesn't tell a strength and conditioning coach how useful an intervention is nor the chances of it being harmful or beneficial to his athletes. The approach to stats I am talking about does.

Also, I don't know if the characterization is accurate that magnitude based inferences are only trotted out when traditional stats don't show an effect as a post hoc analysis. Here is an exmaple of study published purely (and from the start) using this form of statistical analysis:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20397095

And that is one among many. In fact there are a good number of studies that don't even use p values and go right to establishing a magnitude based effect, giving chances that it could be beneficial, trivial or harmful and provide that based on confidence intervals. In fact, I am guessing from your critique that you didn't actually read the link I provided to sportscience.org? Because I felt a little straw manned by your response, so I assume that was just because you weren't 100% clear on what I was referring to. So please do check out the link, it can only broaden your perspective.

Also I'm not sure if it was mentioned here, but the limitations of NBAL really should be made clear. In Wahlberg et all 1988 (where they compared 1.6 to 1.0 g/kg protein in lean bbers), even though the 1.6g/kg group lost LBM, Nitrogen Balance was positive. Also, in Pikosky 2010, they took folks, put them on 1.8g/kg and had them get into a deficit purely from activity, cardio, and they achieved positive nitrogen balance, but lost LBM as well. So if we are inferring information from NBAL and trying to make distinctions between 1.8 and 2.2, I really don't think the measure utilized is sensitive enough, nor does it target skeletal muscle, or tell you anything about optimal intake, rather it provides a functional minimum to avoid losses in total body protein (nitrogen). And I don't think functional minimum to prevent LBM loss=optimal ntake for adaptation.

Ma ise mõtlen umbes samamoodi. Eks muidugi paar korda nädalas kick-poksiga treeniv tütarlaps ei pea raudkindalt sööma 2.5g kehakilo kohta valke. Aga IMO on selline lähenemine nii mõneski mõttes soovitatav. Tead kindlalt, et valguvajadused on Dieedi ajal kaetud, näljatunne kontrolli all ning ega siis valgud mööda külgi energia mõttes maha ei jookse. :)

Seega pigem veidi üle, kui alla. :)

Edited by Archangel
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Valkude tarbimise spetsiifika on laias laastus oletamised veel. Seega ma ei näe põhjust mitte tarbida igaks juhuks veidi rohkem, kui vbl vaja on. Eriti kuna valgu suurem tarbimine dieedi ajal on niikuinii ka näljatundele üldiselt parem. Sobiliku kaloraaži puhul on vaevalt puudusi rasvadest ja süsivesikutest.

Eric Helms kirjutas Facebooki ühe huvitava posti valkude vajalikkuse kohta:

Halloo, sa ikka ise enne teksti ka läbi loed, või keskendud ainult numbritele. :huh:

Jutt on artiklis ELIIT-sportlastest tõstjatest ja kulturistidest, meil aga on tegemist tütarlapsega, väikese kehakaaluga, kickpoksijaga, kes treenib asjaarmastaja tasemel 3 x nädalas. :)

On vahe või ei ole?

Ja VOMAX`i artikkel räägib, et valkudest piisab:

Näiteks Vomax-s tehtud toitumisuuringud on näidanud, et just väga suurte koormustega treenivatel sportlastel ja harrastussportlastel jäävad tarbitavad toidukogused liiga väikeseks. Vaatamata sellele, et neil on esinenud väike energiapuudujääk, on nende toidust saadavad valgukogused olnud ikkagi piisavad.

Edited by ROtter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kaloreid alla ajades tasub igaühel valke tõsta. Ja minu loetud artiklite põhjal on valguvajadus pigem just alahinnatud, eriti aeroobsetel aladel nagu kasvõi jalgrattasport :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Võibolla tuleks mõelda nii, et pole vaja üritada rasva osakaalu vähendada, vaid hoopis lihaste osakaalu suurendada. Kui lihast pole, ei ole midagi eriti nähtavale tulemas ka (ainuüksi keharasva protsendi madalaks ajamise kaudu ei saa veel mehest kulturisti ja neiust bikini fitnessisti).

Aga kickpoks + dieet + naisterahvas bf 15% = väga halvad olud lihase kasvamiseks.

Edited by salasilm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olen lugenud, et lihaste kasvatamiseks tuleks süüa rohkem kui päevane soovitatav kcal hulk, aga ma ei jõua seda päevastki täis süüa.. Sellesuhtes arvan, et rasvaprotsenti langetada oleks lihtsam ja kaalust juurde ka ei võtaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sinu pikkuse juures oleks sportliku kehaehitusega naisel normaalne kaaluda umbes 60 kilo. Sinu praegune tegevus lõhnab tugevalt anoreksia järele. Sa peaksid alustama oma mõtlemise muutmisest.

Miks sa ei jõua oma kcal päevas täis süüa? Kas puudu on ajast, rahast, või tahtmisest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anoreksiaga siin küll tegemist ei ole. Mul ei ole midagi selle vastu kui mõni kilo juurde tuleb. Tahaksin, et lihased rohkem välja tuleks, aga lihase kasvatamiseks peaks nii palju sööma. Minu päevane soovitatav on 2425kcal tavaliselt söön sellest max 2000kcal. Söön hommikul korralikult, lõunal, õhtul ja terve päeva peale näksin ikka ka normaalselt vahepeal. Kõht pole tühi, et veel süüa. See 2425 tundubki natuke liiga palju minu arust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×