or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Low Carb Diet - Page 6

post #91 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLgolf View Post
 

There are less carbs in beer then you think. Watch your calories and stick with low GI carbs 

Yes but ethanol drives insulin through the roof. 

 

Any time you eliminate a major calorie source you stand a better chance of losing weight.  That could be fat, protein, or carb.  You can find a study or book or clinician who has success with any of those 3 plans.  The key is to find one that works for you and be disciplined.  Being disciplined is a heck of a lot easier when you're full! 

 

For a lot of people, carbs are extremely filling and high protein/fat makes them nauseous (I've found this particularly with east Asians and some of African descent).  For others, like me (eastern European descent), I need protein and fat to have any chance of staying full. 

 

You get your mitochondrial DNA from your mother, so think about how she eats and functions and 8 times out of 10 that will help direct you.

post #92 of 170

I adapted my wife's medifast plan to something I could use.

Eating 5 small, low cal, high protein meals a day

with 1 portioned sized lean meat/greens meal.

 

I started on 1/1/14 and I am down 20 lbs.

Cant even begin to explain how the difference feels.

And I have cut out drinking.

I limit myself to 1 beer or a glass or 2 of wine a week. Compared to my 2 beers a night.

 

And I began running 3 times a week on the treadmill, atleast a mile at a time.

 

I just might be a monster on the course this year!

post #93 of 170
Check out a plant based diet.
post #94 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elmer View Post
 

I adapted my wife's medifast plan to something I could use.

Eating 5 small, low cal, high protein meals a day

with 1 portioned sized lean meat/greens meal.

 

I started on 1/1/14 and I am down 20 lbs.

Cant even begin to explain how the difference feels.

And I have cut out drinking.

I limit myself to 1 beer or a glass or 2 of wine a week. Compared to my 2 beers a night.

 

And I began running 3 times a week on the treadmill, atleast a mile at a time.

 

I just might be a monster on the course this year!


Congrats man!  Way to go!

 

Working through a PhD in nutrition has taught me a few things after reading thousands of studies: adherence is the top predictor for success.  Find something that works for you and your chances skyrocket. 

 

I don't even want to get into most of the hokum "science" that goes into most diet books - you are your own best feedback.  Trust that. 

post #95 of 170

My progress so far on < 30g carbs per day. No grains, no (unfermented) sugar. Moving average for clarity. Very much agree with the post above: "You are your own best feedback."

 

post #96 of 170
Thread Starter 

I believe @saevel25 has been touting this all along...

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/sarah-knapton/10703970/No-link-found-between-saturated-fat-and-heart-disease.html

 

More and more evidence seems to indicate that eating saturate fat does NOT increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

More and more, it appears it is sugar/carbohydrate (not the complex carbohydrate but simple carbohydrate) that is responsible for vast majority of health problems we see today.

post #97 of 170

I think its more PROCESSED sugar and carbs. There are certain cultures that can thrive off of more carb diets. Yet those carbs are all naturally found and minimally processed. 

 

For me the up most importance is that each person needs to find what works for them. If someone can handle carbs, then I have no problem with it.

 

Overall, I would like to see the processed food industry take a noise dive. No more boxed or packaged food that can last a year with out spoiling. Get people back to the dinner table with a home cooked meals, and I don't mean throwing a precooked dinner in the oven. 

post #98 of 170

There was a program on in the UK a few months back where two doctors who are both twins ate entirely different diets for a single month; one ate a no carb/sugar diet and the other went on a minimal fat diet. It was a very interesting program but the basic summary from the experiment was:

- Both diets lost the doctors weight.
- A high (natural) fats diet with no carbs/sugars diet will lose you 4 times the body mass than a high glucose low fat diet.
- The ratio of muscle and fat lost is more or less 50:50 during weight loss on both diets.
- Glucose is basically essential in any type of exhausting activity whether it's cycling up a very steep hill or concentrating on trading stocks and shares; the body needs sugars to operate at peak efficiency and fats don't provide that immediately unlike glucose.
- The hypothesis that the high sugar diet would lead someone toward diabetes was incorrect and in fact the high fat diet was much (much!) worse meaning the doctor who was on that diet was 2 points away from being pre-diabetic at the end of the study. 
- By FAR and away the worst possible way of eating was a 50/50 split of sugar and fat which is why most creatures find that combination uncontrollable. Doughnuts, cheesecake, ice cream etc.
- In a study on rats the group fed high sugar foods did not gain weight. The rats on high fat but no sugar also did not gain weight. The rats fed a 50/50 mix of sugar and fat gained insidious amounts of weight.

And lastly:

- By far and away the best way to lose weight is to avoid all processed food (which often has the noxious 50/50 sugar and fat combination) and to eat a healthy mix of healthy fats, natural sugars and some carbs and to exercise regularly so that any weight lost is primarily from fat stores and not muscle.

There's no magic pill; it's just a case of finding the correct ratio for your own body type, metabolism and exercise regime.

post #99 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon View Post
 

There was a program on in the UK a few months back where two doctors who are both twins ate entirely different diets for a single month; one ate a no carb/sugar diet and the other went on a minimal fat diet. It was a very interesting program but the basic summary from the experiment was:

- Both diets lost the doctors weight.
- A high (natural) fats diet with no carbs/sugars diet will lose you 4 times the body mass than a high glucose low fat diet.
- The ratio of muscle and fat lost is more or less 50:50 during weight loss on both diets.
- Glucose is basically essential in any type of exhausting activity whether it's cycling up a very steep hill or concentrating on trading stocks and shares; the body needs sugars to operate at peak efficiency and fats don't provide that immediately unlike glucose.
- The hypothesis that the high sugar diet would lead someone toward diabetes was incorrect and in fact the high fat diet was much (much!) worse meaning the doctor who was on that diet was 2 points away from being pre-diabetic at the end of the study. 
- By FAR and away the worst possible way of eating was a 50/50 split of sugar and fat which is why most creatures find that combination uncontrollable. Doughnuts, cheesecake, ice cream etc.
- In a study on rats the group fed high sugar foods did not gain weight. The rats on high fat but no sugar also did not gain weight. The rats fed a 50/50 mix of sugar and fat gained insidious amounts of weight.

And lastly:

- By far and away the best way to lose weight is to avoid all processed food (which often has the noxious 50/50 sugar and fat combination) and to eat a healthy mix of healthy fats, natural sugars and some carbs and to exercise regularly so that any weight lost is primarily from fat stores and not muscle.

There's no magic pill; it's just a case of finding the correct ratio for your own body type, metabolism and exercise regime.

 

 

Note, that those studies done with Rats, they were given EXTREMELY HIGH rations of food with EXTREMELY HIGH disproportion of macro nutrients. Basically the doctors fed rats the extreme case and said, "Oh fat hurts rats".  Bravo doctors, you just recreated an outlier.

 

Again those doctors could work better with carbs versus fats. If one did, than both probably did because they are twins. All that twins does is say, "Ok they are identical". If they both are predisposed towards one thing or another, than it can still skew the results. Also what were the lifestyles of the doctors before the tests? Did they adhere to the tests 100% of the time? Did they have any pre-existing medical conditions? Are you just spouting off bullet point summary of what was published with out reading the study word for word? Just saying, you can post a news article summary, and it could be completely different interpretation of what actually happened. 

 

Yes glucose is essential and yet the human body can create its own glucose through the liver. The amount of glucose the bodies needs is actually very small. The liver produces enough for daily resting functions alone. Also low intensity burns less glucose than high intensity. As soon as you go to the point of Anaerobic exercise, you are burning nearly 100% glucose because glucose doesn't need oxygen to burn. Fats need to be oxidized. So, lets say you don't do high intensity long duration workouts. You don't need that many carbs at all because your body doesn't required any for that sort of work out. 

 

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohydrates-do-you-need.html.

 

Check this website out, great information. Basically the daily requirement for glucose is ZERO because the body can make its own and live off of ketosis. 

At least 50 grams per day of carbs to ward off muscle loss, only if the amount of protein is not met to do the same. So with enough protein, carb intake can still be zero with out muscle loss

After that it is all based on how the person reacts. If a person can't work in Ketosis, then yes upping carbs can increase energy, and make the person more pleasant to deal with. :-P

 

This is why a lot of primal diets recommend sprinting over endurance running, and only a few times a week. The rest of the time they recommend lifting heavy weights. This is because the exercise regimen doesn't need that many glucose molecules, it's low intensity. 

 

Actually 50/50 is pretty tasty. There is a reason why processed foods are addictive. Yes they are very over powerful at first. If you get off sugar for an extended period and then go drink a soda. Its really not that appealing. Then you start drinking more and more, and it becomes addictive. Its really scary how these companies use our brains pleasure centers against us. 

 

On a note on metabolism. Since it seems to be the biggest excuse lately. Majority of people don't have a messed up metabolism. Most of the time people can't gauge how much they eat during the day. They think they are eating way less than they are. Given metabolism fluctuates, but its still goes back to a normal area for majority of people. Like most things found naturally, it sits on a bell curve. So to be an outlier on this, you got to be a very large standard deviation away from the norm. You might be talking 5% or less of the population. Not high odds. If people want to find out. Get them on a moderate work out regime and a very strict calorie program to isolate if their metabolism is bad. Odds are it isn't. Its kinda the reason most diets work for a while. It gives a person structure, until they fall off the bandwagon. 

post #100 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon View Post
 

There was a program on in the UK a few months back where two doctors who are both twins ate entirely different diets for a single month; one ate a no carb/sugar diet and the other went on a minimal fat diet. It was a very interesting program but the basic summary from the experiment was:

- Both diets lost the doctors weight.
- A high (natural) fats diet with no carbs/sugars diet will lose you 4 times the body mass than a high glucose low fat diet.
- The ratio of muscle and fat lost is more or less 50:50 during weight loss on both diets.
- Glucose is basically essential in any type of exhausting activity whether it's cycling up a very steep hill or concentrating on trading stocks and shares; the body needs sugars to operate at peak efficiency and fats don't provide that immediately unlike glucose.
- The hypothesis that the high sugar diet would lead someone toward diabetes was incorrect and in fact the high fat diet was much (much!) worse meaning the doctor who was on that diet was 2 points away from being pre-diabetic at the end of the study. 
- By FAR and away the worst possible way of eating was a 50/50 split of sugar and fat which is why most creatures find that combination uncontrollable. Doughnuts, cheesecake, ice cream etc.
- In a study on rats the group fed high sugar foods did not gain weight. The rats on high fat but no sugar also did not gain weight. The rats fed a 50/50 mix of sugar and fat gained insidious amounts of weight.

And lastly:

- By far and away the best way to lose weight is to avoid all processed food (which often has the noxious 50/50 sugar and fat combination) and to eat a healthy mix of healthy fats, natural sugars and some carbs and to exercise regularly so that any weight lost is primarily from fat stores and not muscle.

There's no magic pill; it's just a case of finding the correct ratio for your own body type, metabolism and exercise regime.

 

 

Note, that those studies done with Rats, they were given EXTREMELY HIGH rations of food with EXTREMELY HIGH disproportion of macro nutrients. Basically the doctors fed rats the extreme case and said, "Oh fat hurts rats".  Bravo doctors, you just recreated an outlier.

 

Again those doctors could work better with carbs versus fats. If one did, than both probably did because they are twins. All that twins does is say, "Ok they are identical". If they both are predisposed towards one thing or another, than it can still skew the results. Also what were the lifestyles of the doctors before the tests? Did they adhere to the tests 100% of the time? Did they have any pre-existing medical conditions? Are you just spouting off bullet point summary of what was published with out reading the study word for word? Just saying, you can post a news article summary, and it could be completely different interpretation of what actually happened. 

 

Yes glucose is essential and yet the human body can create its own glucose through the liver. The amount of glucose the bodies needs is actually very small. The liver produces enough for daily resting functions alone. Also low intensity burns less glucose than high intensity. As soon as you go to the point of Anaerobic exercise, you are burning nearly 100% glucose because glucose doesn't need oxygen to burn. Fats need to be oxidized. So, lets say you don't do high intensity long duration workouts. You don't need that many carbs at all because your body doesn't required any for that sort of work out. 

 

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohydrates-do-you-need.html.

 

Check this website out, great information. Basically the daily requirement for glucose is ZERO because the body can make its own and live off of ketosis. 

At least 50 grams per day of carbs to ward off muscle loss, only if the amount of protein is not met to do the same. So with enough protein, carb intake can still be zero with out muscle loss

After that it is all based on how the person reacts. If a person can't work in Ketosis, then yes upping carbs can increase energy, and make the person more pleasant to deal with. :-P

 

This is why a lot of primal diets recommend sprinting over endurance running, and only a few times a week. The rest of the time they recommend lifting heavy weights. This is because the exercise regimen doesn't need that many glucose molecules, it's low intensity. 

 

Actually 50/50 is pretty tasty. There is a reason why processed foods are addictive. Yes they are very over powerful at first. If you get off sugar for an extended period and then go drink a soda. Its really not that appealing. Then you start drinking more and more, and it becomes addictive. Its really scary how these companies use our brains pleasure centers against us. 

 

On a note on metabolism. Since it seems to be the biggest excuse lately. Majority of people don't have a messed up metabolism. Most of the time people can't gauge how much they eat during the day. They think they are eating way less than they are. Given metabolism fluctuates, but its still goes back to a normal area for majority of people. Like most things found naturally, it sits on a bell curve. So to be an outlier on this, you got to be a very large standard deviation away from the norm. You might be talking 5% or less of the population. Not high odds. If people want to find out. Get them on a moderate work out regime and a very strict calorie program to isolate if their metabolism is bad. Odds are it isn't. Its kinda the reason most diets work for a while. It gives a person structure, until they fall off the bandwagon. 


Neither rat gained weight according to the program. It was the rats that had *both* fats and sugars that gained weight.

I'm "spouting off" what I saw of the program that I watched, not a bullet point take home of x or y study or taken from any website.

There's more info on the program here - http://www.dietdoctor.com/sugar-vs-fat-on-bbc-which-is-worse

And the program was called "Horizon - Sugar Vs Fat" so there are plenty of different perspectives on it.

post #101 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiniBlueDragon View Post
 


Neither rat gained weight according to the program. It was the rats that had *both* fats and sugars that gained weight.

I'm "spouting off" what I saw of the program that I watched, not a bullet point take home of x or y study or taken from any website.

There's more info on the program here - http://www.dietdoctor.com/sugar-vs-fat-on-bbc-which-is-worse

And the program was called "Horizon - Sugar Vs Fat" so there are plenty of different perspectives on it.

 

Interesting summary on that website. I do think their bullet points on that are a slightly different than yours. At least with the diabete's results. 

 

Quote:
 

The low-carb brother has a fasting glucose of 5,1 before the diet (normal) and a fasting glucose of 5,9 after the diet (normal). Did you catch the word “normal” twice? Yes, thats right, a fasting glucose of up to 6,0 mmol/L is considered normal, at least in Sweden. It also varies significantly from day to day. If we tested the doctors’s own fasting blood glucose it might be 5,9 today and 5,1 tomorrow.

The result could be due to chance but sometimes the fasting glucose level actually gets slightly higher on an LCHF diet, while the glucose levels during the day (after meals) is way lower. This is probably because the body is adapted to burning fat and so the need for burning glucose when fasting is lower. Thus you don’t get the same fasting “dip” in sugar levels.

They also did glucose tolerance tests – a much more relevant test. But the result of the low-carb brother is never mentioned. I guess it was normal.

 

All of which is true. Yes eating low carb can spike the blood sugar because food is entering the body. Yet it doesn't really cause any long term diabetic problems because its not a chronic inducing action. Meaning it doesn't keep the insulin levels elevated to the point of insulin resistance. Mostly that is due to being excessively over weight for a long time. It has been found that the type of diabetes formed through diet can be reversed by loosing weight. A lot of people get off a lot of medication if they just get healthy. Genetic diabetes is a whole other situation all together. 

 

I would like to have seen blood sugar levels take long term. It might be more dangerous if the doctor had some reservations against performing something that could take him close to be diabetic. Yet, it is only the true way when the blood test is like body weight, it can fluctuate greatly depending on a lot of factors. Heck if I weight myself after a big carb meal, I might weight 2-3 lbs heavier than I would actually be at fasting weight. I didn't eat 2-3 lbs of food, but water weight is a big thing. 

post #102 of 170

LCHF (low carb high fat) is very much the topic du jour here in South Africa, as our most prominent sports scientist (who has been banging the drum about it for several years in the context of athletic performance) recently came out with a manifesto/cookbook that has become the fastest seller in local publishing history.

 

http://realmealrevolution.com

 

In my four ball this morning, three of us were on the "Tim Noakes" diet, with weight losses since Jan. 1 of 12.5 kg (28 lbs), 9 kg (20 lbs) and 7 kg (15 lbs) respectively. The fourth was an ex-SAS operator who now makes his living as a hostage negotiator for multinational corporations who've had staff kidnapped in various trouble zones, and he doesn't need to lose any weight! 

 

Personally, I never ate a lot of refined sugar (don't have a sweet tooth) or processed foods but still managed to get fairly fat (BMI > 27) by drinking a lot of beer and eating a lot of bread, pasta, pizza etc. Nowadays, I just drink a lot of Scotch and eat a lot of steak and feel and look a lot better! N = 1, YMMV.

post #103 of 170
Thread Starter 

I believe Saeve

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
 

LCHF (low carb high fat) is very much the topic du jour here in South Africa, as our most prominent sports scientist (who has been banging the drum about it for several years in the context of athletic performance) recently came out with a manifesto/cookbook that has become the fastest seller in local publishing history.

 

http://realmealrevolution.com

 

In my four ball this morning, three of us were on the "Tim Noakes" diet, with weight losses since Jan. 1 of 12.5 kg (28 lbs), 9 kg (20 lbs) and 7 kg (15 lbs) respectively. The fourth was an ex-SAS operator who now makes his living as a hostage negotiator for multinational corporations who've had staff kidnapped in various trouble zones, and he doesn't need to lose any weight! 

 

Personally, I never ate a lot of refined sugar (don't have a sweet tooth) or processed foods but still managed to get fairly fat (BMI > 27) by drinking a lot of beer and eating a lot of bread, pasta, pizza etc. Nowadays, I just drink a lot of Scotch and eat a lot of steak and feel and look a lot better! N = 1, YMMV.

Those three items are processed foods.  They are high in refined carbohydrates and will lead to one to gain weight.

post #104 of 170

Every food is "processed" to some degree. A T-bone steak wasn't born that way.

 

In the context of this thread, people have generally been using "processed foods" to mean crap that comes out of a box (or a fast food takeout bag) with a list of chemical ingredients as long as your arm. My point was simply that I didn't eat that sort of obvious rubbish and thought that that was enough, which it wasn't. We are singing from the same hymn sheet.

post #105 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
 

Every food is "processed" to some degree. A T-bone steak wasn't born that way.

 

In the context of this thread, people have generally been using "processed foods" to mean crap that comes out of a box (or a fast food takeout bag) with a list of chemical ingredients as long as your arm. My point was simply that I didn't eat that sort of obvious rubbish and thought that that was enough, which it wasn't. We are singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

 

That is nit picking a bit. You are not chemically changing beef. When you take flour and water, add yeast, go through the reaction to create gluten. You are chemically changing flour to dough. 

 

I do agree, minimally processed is the best. Honestly I don't mind pizza, but I would try to get it from a local pizza shop that makes the dough there. I know a place in Dayton that makes dough every day from scratch. THE best pizza dough ever. I would go there than normal chain restaurants. I have no clue what they put in Pizza Hut's dough. I just know fresh dough doesn't need much in the way of preservatives and other expensive chemicals because they go through enough during the day, and make it fresh daily. 

post #106 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by saevel25 View Post

 

Overall, I would like to see the processed food industry take a noise dive. No more boxed or packaged food that can last a year with out spoiling. Get people back to the dinner table with a home cooked meals, and I don't mean throwing a precooked dinner in the oven. 

No doubt. I am always surprised how much people consume given the high cost of it relative to the volume. Depending on the season fresh produce and some raw proteins are usually considerably less money. We've been eating a lot of chuck eye steak and fish, the latter real cheap now because of Lent.  Cod is .77 a pound here. I bought just over a pound of chuck eye to slice for salads, six cod filets, a large bunch of celery, 7 roma tomatoes, 2 heads lettuce, 2 onions, a bunch of organic bananas, bunch of radishes, small pack blueberries, foot long or better English cucumber, dozen eggs and a $5.49 bottle of Tessemae's all natural dressing and it was just over $30. It will feed two for several days, though I'm sure I'll stop by the store for things as needed. We eat a lot of asparagus, but again $5 of it lasts several days. The only expensive processed stuff I buy is almond and coconut milk. Would like to get away from it due to the preservatives.

post #107 of 170

I'm on my 3rd go around with the Atkins diet. I'm pretty good at making the diet work for the period that I'm loosing weight but not very good at sticking to a lifestyle change. The first two times I did Atkins was early 2000's and I lost my goal weight each time, about 20 to 25lbs. I like the way Atkins has revised and updated the diet to account for 'net' carbs and suggest a daily intake of the foundation veggies. I also like the updates to the diet phases and hope that I can progress through to the point where staying within the carb constraints is comfortable and second nature. At this point my weight is down, I'm exercising and feel & look much better than when I started. I won't know the true affects until my next exam and blood work but if they way I feel is any indication than I'm expecting good results.

post #108 of 170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stretch View Post
 

Every food is "processed" to some degree. A T-bone steak wasn't born that way.

 

In the context of this thread, people have generally been using "processed foods" to mean crap that comes out of a box (or a fast food takeout bag) with a list of chemical ingredients as long as your arm. My point was simply that I didn't eat that sort of obvious rubbish and thought that that was enough, which it wasn't. We are singing from the same hymn sheet.

 

 

My wife has started eating a plant based diet and it's amazing the information that promotes healthier living by taking processed foods out of the diet.    It is very difficult for her to find oil free foods.  Trader Joe's use to carry an oil free pasta sauce but they have changed the recipe.   She is now making her own.   I'll admit it's pretty good. 

 

I haven't converted yet but I will say the data that supports her new lifestyle is amazing.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Fitness and Exercise