Low Carb Diet

[Adam Young]

Quote:

Body burns fat depending on how much Oxygen is in the blood stream. Basically lower the heart rate, more fat is burned, higher the heart rate the more Glycogen is burned, because Fat needs Oxygen to burn.

You have misunderstood the image.The body burns a larger % of fat at lower heart rates, not a larger amount of fat. % and total energy burned are two different things. If I exercise 1000 calories away in 1 hour at a rate that burns 50% fat and 50% glycogen, that's 500 calories out of fat stores. If I exercise at a more intense rate and burn 2,000 calories in that same hour, but at 33% fat 66% glycogen, I have effectively burned 666 calories of fat.

In either case, it doesn't matter as total calories burned is still king here. when you exercise, calories have to come from somewhere - fat stores, muscle glycogen or food that we are digesting. If we just take your example of limiting it to fat an glycogen - even if i burned less fat during a workout and more glycogen, that glycogen has to be replenished at some point. This comes from the food we digest - so it gets favourably partitioned towards muscle cells and so less of it is stored as fat.

As an example, say we make it more even in your favour (which it isn't but just to prove a point) even if both exercisers burned 1000 caloires and one burned 100% from fat, the other burned 100% from glycogen stores. The meal postworkout (whether this be immediately, or within the next week) of 1,000 caloiries will be partitioned into either glycogen stores or fat stores. Our 100% fat guy has full glycogen so.... oooh no, the food cant go in the muscles as they are already full. Ok then, it puts it into fat stores. On the other hand, our 100% glycogen guy who lost NO FAT but now has a 1000 calorie space in his muscles - the food gets stored there and voila.... nothing stored as fat. The efefctive same thing has happened, even thoguh one guy burned more fat during exercise

now this is an illustrative example taking extremes, but it still functions like this in the real world. Scientific studies have proven this over and over , yet people still want to hang on to this old 80's way of false thinking that you burn more fat by doing cardio.

In fact - weight lifting not only burns a higher amount of total caloires during the exercise, but it also creates an afterburn - metabolic arise, for up to 72 hours later. Total caloric expenditure is much greater over the course of a week. The graph you showed only looks at caloric % expenditure over the course of the duration of exercise - an incorrect ay of looking at it.

not that cardio doesn't work - it does, it is just inefficient. It also opens up catabolic pathways which could potentially lead to more muscle loss than the same fat loss through a weight training protocol.

Quote:

Also its not as simple as taking in and taking out. Metabolic rates have a huge key to play. Its also why its hard to tell actually how many calories we burn in a day. I personally have a very good Vo2 and heart rate. My standing heart rate is very low, it can get into the low to mid 60's. Yet i am about 21%-23% body fat. It takes forever for my heart rate to get going when i run. i could do 5 all out sprints for a minute each and still not struggle to catch my breath. Someone could be the same weight and couldn't be in shape as i am. So, it hard to go through general rules of thumb on this. I am very healthy, but not by looks. So the numbers can lie there are a lot of things going on. That's why going by what machines say you burn is tough to go by.

It is almost as simple as this. Trust me, When you look in depth enough at all this stuff, and you research insulin, you research glycogen, you research leptin, ghrelin, thyroid, high/low glycemic indexes,  etc etc etc you actually realise that it IS THIS SIMPLE. people like Taubes like to try and make it out to be more complex, but they are tryingt o sell you an idea and a reason which doesn't exist. If taubes was right (a calorie is not a caloir) why the hell are the Inuits so overweight with their low carb % but the Japanese are largely diabetic free and skinny with their high % of carb intake. It comes down tot he difference in total caloric intake/expenidture

Quote:

I agree if your exercising a lot carbs have been shown to help in repairing the muscles. But its not as much as you think, maybe about 10-20 grams of carbs after you exercise is all you need. The best source would be maybe a protein shake made from fresh fruits.

im not talking solely about repairing muscles, I am talking about glycogen replenishment also - which will not happen by solely taking in protein and fat. Muscles need to have teir glycogen replenished so they can work hard next time. If the stores dont get replenished over a long time, the muscle gets eaten away. so not only is it important short term (as you stated) but long term it is vital to maintain training capacity/intensity - a prime determinant of how much lean body mass you maintain during your dieting.

Quote:

But not everything is as simple as calories. What you eat MATTERS!!! If you have read any of the books coming out about Carbs, its not that simple. Especially if you think all carbs are the same, there not. They are the same in energy expenditure, yes they are, but on other functions in the body, no there not. Especially when talking about sugar.

Sugar, when it enter's your body, it forces your body to produce insulin, to maintain a blood sugar balance. This is known, but it puts the body into over drive (sugar high/crash). If you keep doing this over time, you will develop a resistance to sugar, meaning you wont get the high/low as before. I have experienced this being a pop drinking for 20+ years then stopping then having a can of pop again. I was totally wired and then crashed. But 5 years ago one pop wouldn't effect me like that. Its because i was insulin resistant, meaning that my body overproduced insulin. This has a nasty side effect, insulin regulates how much fat is being stored in our body. More insulin, means more fat will be stored, beyond energy expenditure. Also a nasty side effect with sugar is that it release pleasure hormones from the brain and will cause us to crave it. Anyone who has tried to kick sugar, will get this, you start thinking about a candy bar or pop, your brain will tell you, that is some good stuff, and you have to really try not to eat it. This creates a nasty cycle that has lead to a rise is obesity and type 2 diabetes, as well as other host of diseases and health problems.

What you eat does matter - and you should look to getting the right amount of vitamins, minerals, fiber etc in your diet. But carbs are a great way of doing that. Going anti carb will often leave you more deficient in things which come from grains and the like. But in terms of energy expenditure - it generally doenst matter if they come in the form of sugar, fructose or starch to a large extent (i understand the fructose debate, but it is too largely overrated). again, people who rave about how insulin causes fat gain are looking at such a small part of the picture. If I injected your blood so it was 100% insulin but fed you nothing, you wouldn't gain fat. the body can't magic energy out of thin air.

yes, the sugar high/crash is a phenomenon, but it has nothign to do with weight/fat gain. It may lead you to low energy, but tis not gonna make you put on weight. Plus, when sugar is taken with other things it dilutes the effect. White bread will spike blood sugar, white bread with peanut butter will do so less as the fat slows digestion down. Plus, we are talking about context. 1,000 calories of veg is going to send insulin levels higher than a spoon of sugar.

And sugar does not cause diabetes. Genetics and being overweight are the main contributing factors.

Quote:

So if i had to rank carbs, i would eat veggies first, then sweet potato, then potato, then brown rice, then rice, then pasta, then bread, NO SUGAR

I like your food choices, apart from the no sugar part. I love to put honey on my oatmeal, or have a couple of spoons of sugar. I sometimes do this right before I go to bed - maintained below 10% fat for over 3 years now, and dieted down to this level using these tactics. But its not just about me. Surwit et al found no diff in weight loss when groups were fed equicaloric amounts of high sugar/low sugar diets. And a meta analysis of all the different diets found no diff in weight loss wehn calories were controlled. high protein/high fat/high carb didnt matter.

Low carb performed better first, but then everything else caught up - low carb just promotes water loss initially from all the muscle glycogen stored being dpeleted. This also then promotes more musc'e loss.

The main thing to note about all the diets was the drop out rate. Anytime a macronutrient was cut out (carbs/fat/protein) adherence rates droped. The best diet was a balanced one which focused purely on calories - as it allowed people to eat what they wanted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Believe me, i tried it all. I've done the crash diet for 6 months, 500 calories a day. I lost 40 lbs, then i was stuck there for 2 years. I was eating 50% carbs, and split on fat and protein. I ran 3 times a week and lifted weights the other two days. I was eating less than what i was working out, DID NOT LOOSE WEIGHT. Then i stopped drinking pop, and i started going low carb, and i dropped 30 lbs to were i am at now, 200 lbs. My diet is about 15% carbs, 40% fat, and 55% protein, roughly. I feel great, i am not bloated anymore, i just kept loosing weight. Guess what, i am eating the same calorie expenditure as i was when i was stuck at 230.

So let me ask you, explain that please?

Gladly,

If you crash dieted to 500 calories a day its likely you completely runined your metabolism drop. Metabolic crashes are real - although it takes a SUSTAINED low calorie to do it. It is more likley that upping your protein caused the weight loss, as protein has a slight metabolic advantage (20%) - although that deals with calories out side so it is still a matter of calories in vs out.

Also, going low carb will always see a great initial weight loss from glycogen stores. It is not uncommon to see a bigger person have the ability to lose 15 pounds in a week by going low carb, but this is fake weight loss - not true fat loss. It would be almost physiclaly impossible to lose this amount of fat in such a short time.

People get hooked on low carb for this initial massive wieght loss. but they, too, then suffer with an inevitable decline in weight loss. Plus it's not good for your health.

Plus it is likely you weren't tracking calories correctly - people are renowned poor at doing this. All studies show that when calories are closely moniotored it doenst make a diff to weight loss. Maybe youa re a physics anomoly, but I would prefer to take the word of scientific controlled studies over a person, especially when the logic doenst fit and my own experiences and experiences of other I know contradict this.

Congrats on losing weight though.

[saevel25]

Quote:

im not talking solely about repairing muscles, I am talking about glycogen replenishment also - which will not happen by solely taking in protein and fat. Muscles need to have teir glycogen replenished so they can work hard next time. If the stores dont get replenished over a long time, the muscle gets eaten away. so not only is it important short term (as you stated) but long term it is vital to maintain training capacity/intensity - a prime determinant of how much lean body mass you maintain during your dieting.

I have researched and found no sources on the fact that low glycogen levels cause muscle loss. It causes muscle fatigue faster, probably due to the fact that glycogen holds water, but nothing concerning directly related to muscle loss. It has been shown that glycogen is needed by muscles to help them maintain there function. But a low carb diet ISN'T a NO CARB diet.

Low carb means, anywere from 150 grams to 50 grams a day, which is enough for a standard person to live if they are not an endurance runner, someone who is constantly keeping there heart rate above 65-70% when they are running long distance. If such then yes, they require more Glycogen because of the fatigue and stress caused on the body. But to say a standard person who lives a moderate lifestyle of working out needs to eat over 150 grams of carbs a day is just wrong. In fact i say that its a lack of protein that most people suffer from than a lack of carbs.

Quote:

And sugar does not cause diabetes. Genetics and being overweight are the main contributing factors.

Sugar does not cause Type 1 diabetes, that is Genetic

Type 2 diabetes is caused by sugar, because its caused by insulin resistance, which is partly genetic, but also caused by the fact that if you keep spiking your sugar levels over and over again your body will adapt to it and start pumping out more and more insulin when its not needed.

Also sugar damages the liver similar to alcohol. My friend lost his aunt to liver failure because she drank an excessive amount of pop (soda), and the HFCS caused her liver to fail. Sugar is only different from HFCS in the fact taht HFCS has 55% fructose instead of 50%

Not to mention sugar is addictive, it causes a dopamine high similar to drugs, so its hard to kick the want for sugar. Believe me i have experienced this. I gave up pop, straight up cold turkey, about two weeks in, i was craving pop. I never known what a craving was until then, and it was very very tough not to get pop, especially when a guy at work here sells it for 50 cents. That in its self is bad, because it leads to people drinking it when they shouldn't. It then compromises healthy foods if they want to keep track of what they eat. 1 can of pop can equal a TON of veggies, which are far more important than a sugar high.

Also, Carbs are not filling, i eat 4 eggs for breakfast, i can go till lunch and not be hungry. I use to eat oatmeal every morning, i was starving in two hours. Protein and fat sedate hunger, which will cause you to eat less. Carbs don't do that.

Quote:

The main thing to note about all the diets was the drop out rate. Anytime a macronutrient was cut out (carbs/fat/protein) adherence rates droped. The best diet was a balanced one which focused purely on calories - as it allowed people to eat what they wanted.

That's not true, even though eating 10 candy bars might equal the same calorie intake, lets say you ate a large amount of veggies. But the nutritional value of the veggies are so much greater. Calories are not just calories, even though the weight loss might be the same. Weight loss isn't everything. They even proven this that if two people weight the same and one worked out, the percentage of heart failure is much less for the person who works out. I would say that a person who eats fast food every day, compared to someone who ate fresh foods would be far worse off even if they are having the same energy different in trying to loose weight.

Quote:

If you crash dieted to 500 calories a day its likely you completely runined your metabolism drop. Metabolic crashes are real - although it takes a SUSTAINED low calorie to do it. It is more likley that upping your protein caused the weight loss, as protein has a slight metabolic advantage (20%) - although that deals with calories out side so it is still a matter of calories in vs out.

Also, going low carb will always see a great initial weight loss from glycogen stores. It is not uncommon to see a bigger person have the ability to lose 15 pounds in a week by going low carb, but this is fake weight loss - not true fat loss. It would be almost physiclaly impossible to lose this amount of fat in such a short time.

People get hooked on low carb for this initial massive wieght loss. but they, too, then suffer with an inevitable decline in weight loss. Plus it's not good for your health

Well you don't know the timeline (4 years ago)

0-6 months, 500 calories a day (280lbs to 240lbs)

6 months - 36 months, 2200 calories a day, standard diet of 50%-60% Carbs, 15% fat, vary protein (240lbs-225lbs)

36 months - present, 2200 calories a day, low carb (less than 150 grams), rest healthy fats and protein (225lbs to 195 lbs)

Basically that metabolic change didn't matter to much. I still only lost 15 lbs over 30 month period, It shouldn't take that long for my metabolic rate to come back.

But i don't get your water weight loss. If you loose 15 lbs of water, thats 6795 grams of water, glycogen can hold roughly 3 grams of water per gram, which means the body would have to hold 2265 grams of glycogen, that is not possible. I read the body ranges any were from 400 to 600 grams of glycogen. Especially on a low carb diet, once you deplete the glycogen you only regain the amount the liver will hold (50-70 grams), which it produces in house. Really the max water weight you can loose is roughly around 5 lbs of water weight. Once you loose it, your not going to cummulative keep loosing that amount, its a static amount, you might bounce up a few lbs the next day from intake of carbs, but the rest should be fat loss, or water depletion from another source.

The best way to test this, get one of those scales that measures water % in the body. Average person has about 57% water in there body. The lowest i have had probably 52% after drinking no water while golfing on a hot day, that pretty much tanked me for the week, was not smart. but, no way that 15lbs is all from glycogen water storage.

Why would you say low carb isn't good for you, i've read countless word of mouth recounts of people going to a low carb diet and have many health issues solved, there energy levels are higher, they are healthier and living a better life. Most of these people have been doing this for multiple years. It seems to me, first hand accounts of people having a better life and no adverse health effects is pretty strong reason to give it a try. Most cases a lot of the ailments people were having were cured going to a low carb diet.

I can say this, when i dropped carbs down (about 75g a day), my memory has improved, i am more energetic, i don't want to sleep during the middle of the day, i don't have fluctuating blood sugar levels, i feel great. When i work out, i found myself able to go longer and stronger than ever before.

[cliffj]

Read the book Wheat Belly..

[Adam Young]

Quote:

I have researched and found no sources on the fact that low glycogen levels cause muscle loss. It causes muscle fatigue faster, probably due to the fact that glycogen holds water, but nothing concerning directly related to muscle loss. It has been shown that glycogen is needed by muscles to help them maintain there function. But a low carb diet ISN'T a NO CARB diet.

I will try to find the couple of studies that I saw. They looked at low carb versus normal carb and found that, although weight loss was even, the low carbers lost more lean mass. Fair enough that low carb is not NO carb - but the amount or types of carbs ingested is irrelevant to weight loss.

Quote:

In fact i say that its a lack of protein that most people suffer from than a lack of carbs.

agreed, people should eat more protein in general. although, once protein requirements are met (this is generally pretty low, - a 180 pound male consuming 1 gram per pound of body weight would be consuming 720 caloires out of a typical 2,500 daily need). The rest of the calories can be allotted as wished, as long as basics fat intakes for health and hormonal balance are met.

Quote:

Sugar does not cause Type 1 diabetes, that is Genetic

Type 2 diabetes is caused by sugar, because its caused by insulin resistance, which is partly genetic, but also caused by the fact that if you keep spiking your sugar levels over and over again your body will adapt to it and start pumping out more and more insulin when its not needed.

Insulin resistance is much more complicated than to say it is purely a result of spikes caused by sugar. As I ahve said, When eaten with fat/protein, te digestion rate of sugar is dramatically slowed down and so are the insulin spikes. Most of the studies looking at insulin spikes are out of context as they are usually done in a fasted state with the carbohydrate in its pure form alone. In real world, we don't eat things like this. The insulinemic index of a food is dramatically altered by the foods it is eaten with. A couple of spoons of sugar mixed in with peanut butter will in no way spike insulin as much as alone. Eaten after a high protein meal - less again. Eaten post workout - less again. Eaten after a day of low calories - less again (due to increased insulin sensitivity and lower liver glycogen stores).

As with everything, sugar has to be taken into context in terms of diabetes. Lots of factors alter the amount of insulin released. The type of carb is one of the smaller factors in the real world.

Quote:

Also sugar damages the liver similar to alcohol. My friend lost his aunt to liver failure because she drank an excessive amount of pop (soda), and the HFCS caused her liver to fail. Sugar is only different from HFCS in the fact taht HFCS has 55% fructose instead of 50%

Almost everything in high amounts is toxic. but we have to talk context. I am not going to stop using sugar in my oatmeal because I am worried about getting a fatty liver - I use sugar wisely not guzzling it by the kilogram. Liver stress can also result from over consumption of protein - as the liver has to convert excess protein to sugar via gluconeogenesis. Inuits who have a predominantly protein based diet have larger livers to be able to deal with this.

but in terms of weight loss, again, calories are key, not what form they are in. Yes, consuming huge amounts of fructose can be harmful to health, but usually when dieting and filling your protein quota, you are not going to be eating that amount of HFCS from a purely caloric standpoint.

Quote:

Also, Carbs are not filling, i eat 4 eggs for breakfast, i can go till lunch and not be hungry. I use to eat oatmeal every morning, i was starving in two hours. Protein and fat sedate hunger, which will cause you to eat less. Carbs don't do that.

Again, studies have shown that yes, protein is more satiating. But cutting carbs vastly reduces its ability to be so satiating. That's why the studies showing different diets with different macronutirents showed lower adherence rates low carb diets.

Quote:

That's not true, even though eating 10 candy bars might equal the same calorie intake, lets say you ate a large amount of veggies. But the nutritional value of the veggies are so much greater. Calories are not just calories, even though the weight loss might be the same. Weight loss isn't everything. They even proven this that if two people weight the same and one worked out, the percentage of heart failure is much less for the person who works out. I would say that a person who eats fast food every day, compared to someone who ate fresh foods would be far worse off even if they are having the same energy different in trying to loose weight.

you are correct that vegetables will come with many other nutrients. However, the argument was not what produces optimum health, but what produces weight loss.

But if we are talking about optimum health, there can be not a lot of things more nutritious than some grains which are a veritable smorgasboard of minerals and fiber. Many vegetables are not as nutrient dense as you would imagine. I am all for getting your vitamins and minerals in, and fiber intake. Carbohydrates can be an effective way of supplying that.

Quote:

But i don't get your water weight loss. If you loose 15 lbs of water, thats 6795 grams of water, glycogen can hold roughly 3 grams of water per gram, which means the body would have to hold 2265 grams of glycogen, that is not possible. I read the body ranges any were from 400 to 600 grams of glycogen. Especially on a low carb diet, once you deplete the glycogen you only regain the amount the liver will hold (50-70 grams), which it produces in house. Really the max water weight you can loose is roughly around 5 lbs of water weight. Once you loose it, your not going to cummulative keep loosing that amount, its a static amount, you might bounce up a few lbs the next day from intake of carbs, but the rest should be fat loss, or water depletion from another source.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/56/1/292S.full.pdf+html click link and read page 293 S - claims how glycogen in body can be as much as 1kg - in overwieght subjects it has even been shown to be higher as fat cells can store glycogen in some circumstances too. Add to this the effect of glycogen supercompensation and it can be realistic to lose even more water weight. I have seen bodybuilders gain 15 pounds in a day after a show - an then lose that weight again for another show a couple of weeks later. There is no way this is fat loss.

Quote:

Why would you say low carb isn't good for you, i've read countless word of mouth recounts of people going to a low carb diet and have many health issues solved, there energy levels are higher, they are healthier and living a better life. Most of these people have been doing this for multiple years. It seems to me, first hand accounts of people having a better life and no adverse health effects is pretty strong reason to give it a try. Most cases a lot of the ailments people were having were cured going to a low carb diet.

Ok it was a bit of a far stretch to say they are not good for you. But many low carbers suffer nutrient deficiencies with certain minerals. It does work for some people as they deal better with ketogenesis, as it does for you. Others, like myself, operate better with higher levels of carbohydrates. I suppose the message I am getting across is not that I am anti low carb, but I am anti 'anti carb'. Lots of people don't realise that things can be taken out of context regarding carbohydrates, leading to people completely cutting out any form of sugar or tryign to manically reduce carsb when it is not really necessary.

It is possible to lose just as much weight with carbohydrates. Low carb works too. But people should be more concerned with their calories overall and finding a method that is sustainable for them.

All this bull about sugar, clean foods and dirty foods, paleo makes people more neurotic about food than ever. Gary Taubes is one of the worst for this - completely taking studies and drawing conclusions from them that are simply not true, just so it can fit his agenda.

hopefully from this debate, I will not have convinced you that your way doesnt work (it does) but that you shouldnt be frightened to add a few more carbs every now and again. Hell, if you're worried, add them post workout, as your insulin sensistivity in you skeletal muscle will be increased so it will have preferential partitioning. Just don't cut out foods you love and punish yourself to maintain your weight. If you enjoy how you eat, go ahead. But I enjoy eating a massive bowl of sugar covered porridge late at night after my workout. As long as I hit my protein, fat and fiber and vits and minerals for the day, I'm laughing.

I speak form experience. I was once a neurotic mess, eating every 2-3 hours to keep blood sugar levels steady and stop my body from being catabolic. I ate only clean foods and low glycemic carbs. but I was miserable. I did my research, looked into other guys who were achievieng results with similar strategies and scientific approaches and now I have a way that is flexible and healthy.

I often go without breakfast, eat late at night, have high carb days, and low meal frequencies with Large meal sizes. everything wrong by the standards of Men's health magazine and the supplement companies will have you believe. But I got down to 6% fat last summer and maintained more muscle than through any other apporach (and I have tried many). And I didnt feel as hungry and didnt have to cut anything out of my diet (I was still sensible and didnt pig out every day).

Just watch that Taubes guy and the other nut, that fructose guy. They are a little loopy and have agenda's

[Adam Young]

and regarding the fructose thing. This guy explains it better than I could, - fructose is not my area i'm afraid

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

[saevel25]

Quote:

dd to this the effect of glycogen supercompensation and it can be realistic to lose even more water weight. I have seen bodybuilders gain 15 pounds in a day after a show - an then lose that weight again for another show a couple of weeks later. There is no way this is fat loss.

Are sure its fat, because fat doesn't store nearly as much water as muslce or glycogen. So, for a body builder, who is low in fat anyways, if they just drink an excessive amount of water, and binge on tons of carbs, i can see 15 lbs. But a 280lb over weight person, who hasn't worked out there muscles with any sort of weight lifting. I would say if they loose 15lbs of weight, i can see alot of it being water weight, but much more fat must have been lost than compared to a body builder. Especially since the liver holds anywere from 80-120 grams of glycogen, and the rest is stored in the muscles, from what is saw, 1%. So your looking at a body builder who has an extreme amount of muscles, yes there glycogen level is extremely high. But an overweight person just doesn't have that capacity. I have seen this with myself, and my eating habits in the past. I don't nearly gain as much weight if i have a high carb day. But i think body builders are looking for this to gain definition, so they know the secrets to maximizing the effect.

I already agreed that a person should eat more carbs after working out. I eat carbs to, its just not a staple of my diet. I rank my cars big time. I always believe that we were made to eat foods with the least amount of handling in-between the harvesting and our mouths. So potatoes rank high, bread ranks low. If i had to choose between pasta and bread, i would go pasta, because store bought dried pasta doesn't have all the preservatives and junk store bought bread is. If i made my own bread from scratch, then i would go that route. But i really like potatoes, especially with real butter, YUM!!!

But i don't feel the need to ever come close to capping off my glycogen storage levels. I am not a marathon runner, and don't need 75 minutes of sprinting energy in my body. I spend 90% of my time with my heart rate low.

Now when Zombies start to take over, i will start packing on the carbs for some epic chase scenes :p

[Adam Young]

Originally Posted by saevel25

Are sure its fat, because fat doesn't store nearly as much water as muslce or glycogen. So, for a body builder, who is low in fat anyways, if they just drink an excessive amount of water, and binge on tons of carbs, i can see 15 lbs. But a 280lb over weight person, who hasn't worked out there muscles with any sort of weight lifting. I would say if they loose 15lbs of weight, i can see alot of it being water weight, but much more fat must have been lost than compared to a body builder. Especially since the liver holds anywere from 80-120 grams of glycogen, and the rest is stored in the muscles, from what is saw, 1%. So your looking at a body builder who has an extreme amount of muscles, yes there glycogen level is extremely high. But an overweight person just doesn't have that capacity. I have seen this with myself, and my eating habits in the past. I don't nearly gain as much weight if i have a high carb day. But i think body builders are looking for this to gain definition, so they know the secrets to maximizing the effect.

I already agreed that a person should eat more carbs after working out. I eat carbs to, its just not a staple of my diet. I rank my cars big time. I always believe that we were made to eat foods with the least amount of handling in-between the harvesting and our mouths. So potatoes rank high, bread ranks low. If i had to choose between pasta and bread, i would go pasta, because store bought dried pasta doesn't have all the preservatives and junk store bought bread is. If i made my own bread from scratch, then i would go that route. But i really like potatoes, especially with real butter, YUM!!!

But i don't feel the need to ever come close to capping off my glycogen storage levels. I am not a marathon runner, and don't need 75 minutes of sprinting energy in my body. I spend 90% of my time with my heart rate low.

Now when Zombies start to take over, i will start packing on the carbs for some epic chase scenes :p

the bodybuilder example was extreme, but relevant. A lot of people (not you for some reason) experience this supercompensatory effect when binging on carbs after a low carb diet. They then see the scale go up a few pounds and go off track. In reality, it is possible to gain quite a few pounds and not gain any physical fat - so people shouldnt worry so much about this. People need to be educated on the diff between glycogen and fat loss.

regarding overweight people - they usually have just as big, if not bigger capacity to lose water weight. Watch 'The biggest loser' and see that some of them lose 20lbs in the first week (i think i have even seen more). There is no way they are burning over 72,000 calories in that time. Regardless, people shouldn't weigh themselves too often as it can fluctuate so much.

the only reason I get so uppity about this is that so many people go on tese crazy diets cutting out many things unnecessarily, then after a couple of weeks they have had it - think dieting is not for them and then give up. If they realised there was a more appropriate approach to dieting, they would never feel the need to actually diet as such.

If you ever get chance, research intermittent fasting, (eat stop eat is a good start, followed by leangains) and IIFYM (if it fits your macros). These are much more flexible approaches to dieting and are very scientific in their approach. Even if you dont apply any of the principles, it is fascinating stuff. Alan Aragon is also an excellent writer on this stuff and debunks a lot of myths surrounding alarmism on cabophobia/fructophobia etc.

My personal plan includes fasting one day a week - then dispersing those carbs throughout the other weekdays when i am training. I alternate calorie days in a cyclical fashion too. It is not necessary in terms of weight loss, but allows me to build muscle better. It also allows me bigger meals - which I love as I have an insanely huge appetite. I can sometimes eat 3,000 calories in one sitting. But since I have been following these principles, I have seen fat levels drop and muscle levels increase and blood work is better also (went a little funny when I got down to 6%, so I have gained back up to 9 now and they read better).

[saevel25]

I've done intermittent fasting before, i try to do it once a weak. I usually try to go from dinner to dinner, its a bit easier that way for me. I probably would have never been able to do that before going on low-carb because i would have suffered horrible carb cravings and litterally have my hands shake from low blood sugar levels.

Oh, how do you gauge muscle mass levels? Do you measure it. I've tried to research this, and with out going to a university, i found no easy way to measure such data. I can get lean muscle mass, but that includes water content, muscle, organs, bones, ect...

Well, studies have shown that if your going to do something, give it 27 days. Its because of habit, it takes that long to develop any sort of habit at all. Most people get discouraged, and they don't do enough research to understand loosing water weight, and plateaus, ect... Also American obsession with loosing weight fast has programmed America to fail.

To me loosing weight is like golf, you can easily go from 120 to 90, but as soon as you hit 90, you got to fight for each stroke. For me, i am the type of person that lets old habits creep in, so i have had basically a stagnant summer, but now i am going to recommit myself to working out more.

[Benny NZ]

I'm a fitness instructor at my local gym in NZ (as well as many other things). What we find a lot of the time is people going on fasts or cutting out foods that are actually good for them.

Low-carb diets are fine, but please don't cut carbs completely. Your body was designed to have them and you'll feel the effects if you don't. It's the reason bodybuilders get so grumpy the day of competition - carbs are your brain's fuel. It's also best to eat carbs for breakfast, so you have the rest of the day to burn them. It's not a good idea to eat them before sleep, since you're literally sitting on them.

People generally need more protein - it aids a lot in fat-burning. This should be take up the majority of your meals. Meats (chicken, beef, fish), dairy, eggs, nuts, oats - these are all great things to eat even if you're not exercising.

Also fats aren't bad, just saturated ones. Good fats like avacado and olive oil can help you add muscle and tone down.

Most weight-training will burn fat, though the best way is high-reps. Between 15-20 reps will generate lactic acid in your muscles to help slim you down. It won't build bulky muscles either, just lean ones.

Cardio is fine but bear in mind it eats muscle - which is vital to metabolism. I'd only recommend it if it's absolutely necessary, and still it's best not to run. Running is somewhat of a myth in the fitness world. It puts a lot of repetitive pressure on your knees. It will burn fat (as will all cardio) but it'll also take you on a short-cut to knee surgery. Bikes, cross-trainers and rowing machines are much better for your body.

Lastly...for the woman! Ladies, you don't need to be afraid of lifting, especially free-weights. If your concerned you're going to look like the guy next to you at the gym - you don't need to worry about that. Men have twenty times the testosterone of women, you simply don't have the genetics to get that big...unless you want to take steroids

[saevel25]

Quote:

Low-carb diets are fine, but please don't cut carbs completely. Your body was designed to have them and you'll feel the effects if you don't. It's the reason bodybuilders get so grumpy the day of competition - carbs are your brain's fuel. It's also best to eat carbs for breakfast, so you have the rest of the day to burn them. It's not a good idea to eat them before sleep, since you're literally sitting on them.

I don't think it matters, your body is going to store carbs the same way no matter what, so if you eat carbs at night, as long as you don't go over your glycogen limit at dinner, your not going to gain any weight, except water weight from storing more glycogen. Then overnight your just sleeping, which primarily burns all fat anyways due to the fact is such a low heart rate. I do agree eating carbs for breakfast is good if you are low, for me, i never had an issue with be groggy or not having energy in the morning due to low glycogen levels.

Quote:

Also fats aren't bad, just saturated ones.

I will go after this, saturated fats are not bad for you. There has been many studies in the past 5 years showing that saturated fats don't cause heart failure, that inflamation causes heart failure. There has been no conclusive study to show that saturated fats are as evil as they are portrayed. I am not saying we should make them 100% our diet of fat. Fats from Olive Oil, nuts, and are conclusively more beneficial than saturated fats, but humans have been eating meats for a long long time, and saturated fats are apart of that. I personally just don't check, i don't eat hamburgers 24/7. but i am not afraid of cooking one up every other day. Or enjoying a steak or bacon when i want to. The only fat i worry about is Trans Fat, i just try to stay away from that as much as possible.

Quote:

Cardio is fine but bear in mind it eats muscle - which is vital to metabolism. I'd only recommend it if it's absolutely necessary, and still it's best not to run. Running is somewhat of a myth in the fitness world. It puts a lot of repetitive pressure on your knees. It will burn fat (as will all cardio) but it'll also take you on a short-cut to knee surgery. Bikes, cross-trainers and rowing machines are much better for your body

Not sure on this one, i have heard about people who do marathons come out with less muscle.  But i think the running once or twice a week, not for extreme distance is fine. But i also think its more about how we run now. We were never meant to run with supporting shoes, we were meant to run barefoot. Besides loosing muscle due to marathon running, i believe that shoes are what are causing people to have knee problems. I use to run with new balance shoes, i switched to Nike Free shoes, and i can just run a lot longer with no pain to my legs at all. It also strengthens my ankles and feet muscles to support the impact from running and walking, which is beneficial to a golf game. Want a stable golf swing, strengthen your ankles by balance and getting rid of supportive shoes.

But for me, i do High Intensity running, basically 5-10 sets of sprints, alternating between 1 minute running with 1-2 minutes resting. It really cuts down on the impact on your legs, and it really jacks up the metabolism for the rest of the day. I find that i don't pound the tredmill as much when i sprint as well, i take much lighter strides than if i was to do an endurance run, closer to a jogging speed.

Quote:

Most weight-training will burn fat, though the best way is high-reps. Between 15-20 reps will generate lactic acid in your muscles to help slim you down. It won't build bulky muscles either, just lean ones.

Its been a while since i researched weight lifting, i know there are some myths involved with reps, but i can't remember. I do know there was a study done showing that outside the first set you do, your not gaining any significant gains. So really if you know your weight and reps, just do one set, anything after that isn't significant to muscle growth. You basically stressed your muscles enough in the first set for what session.

[Lihu]

I'm a fitness instructor at my local gym in NZ (as well as many other things). What we find a lot of the time is people going on fasts or cutting out foods that are actually good for them. Low-carb diets are fine, but please don't cut carbs completely. Your body was designed to have them and you'll feel the effects if you don't. It's the reason bodybuilders get so grumpy the day of competition - carbs are your brain's fuel. It's also best to eat carbs for breakfast, so you have the rest of the day to burn them. It's not a good idea to eat them before sleep, since you're literally sitting on them. People generally need more protein - it aids a lot in fat-burning. This should be take up the majority of your meals. Meats (chicken, beef, fish), dairy, eggs, nuts, oats - these are all great things to eat even if you're not exercising. Also fats aren't bad, just saturated ones. Good fats like avacado and olive oil can help you add muscle and tone down. Most weight-training will burn fat, though the best way is high-reps. Between 15-20 reps will generate lactic acid in your muscles to help slim you down. It won't build bulky muscles either, just lean ones. Cardio is fine but bear in mind it eats muscle - which is vital to metabolism. I'd only recommend it if it's absolutely necessary, and still it's best not to run. Running is somewhat of a myth in the fitness world. It puts a lot of repetitive pressure on your knees. It will burn fat (as will all cardio) but it'll also take you on a short-cut to knee surgery. Bikes, cross-trainers and rowing machines are much better for your body. Lastly...for the woman! Ladies, you don't need to be afraid of lifting, especially free-weights. If your concerned you're going to look like the guy next to you at the gym - you don't need to worry about that. Men have twenty times the testosterone of women, you simply don't have the genetics to get that big...unless you want to take steroids :-P

How much lactic acid is needed to burn more calories? What is the feeling in the muscles that you should get for optimal burn? Is it enough to get 45 minutes of exercise then let the lactic acid in your muscles burn more calories during recovery?

[Adam Young]

saevel, tis isnt aimed at you, but the both of you and the false theory of it all

Quote:

I don't think it matters, your body is going to store carbs the same way no matter what, so if you eat carbs at night, as long as you don't go over your glycogen limit at dinner, your not going to gain any weight, except water weight from storing more glycogen. Then overnight your just sleeping, which primarily burns all fat anyways due to the fact is such a low heart rate. I do agree eating carbs for breakfast is good if you are low, for me, i never had an issue with be groggy or not having energy in the morning due to low glycogen levels.

Guys - this really misses the point completely. Whetehr you eat your food late at night or early in the day will not make a difference how you would imagine. Sure it makes logical sense that if you are eating late at night, you body is metabolically slower, therefore you will store more of those calories as fat. But it looks at the small part of the picture, the post prandial state.

Let me put it this way. Guy one (lets call him guy A) eats his 2,000 caloires for breakfast. He is somehow magically efficient and doesnt store any of it as fat, and burns all of those calories away during the day. Guy two eats the 2000 calories at night. Uh oh, insulin spike and stores all of it as fat (not that this would happen anyway). But what you ahvent seen is, during the day he burned the same 2000 calories as guy A, WHICH CAME FROM FAT stores. Net gain in fat = same as guy A. Yes he technically gained more fat - but he also lost more too during his morning fast.

This is the same to your point of glycogen - it doesn't make a difference. You are looking again at the short term - not the bigger picture.

Even more to the point, taking in food late at night has been show in several studies to actually aid in FAT LOSS. the big hooha was because the people who ate late at night lost less weight. What wasnt mentioned was they maintained more lean mass but lost more fat mass.

Put that in your pipe, smoke it, and ponder on the ramifications for your 'no carbs after 6pm' 80's style philosophy

Quote:

I will go after this, saturated fats are not bad for you. There has been many studies in the past 5 years showing that saturated fats don't cause heart failure, that inflamation causes heart failure. There has been no conclusive study to show that saturated fats are as evil as they are portrayed. I am not saying we should make them 100% our diet of fat. Fats from Olive Oil, nuts, and are conclusively more beneficial than saturated fats, but humans have been eating meats for a long long time, and saturated fats are apart of that. I personally just don't check, i don't eat hamburgers 24/7. but i am not afraid of cooking one up every other day. Or enjoying a steak or bacon when i want to. The only fat i worry about is Trans Fat, i just try to stay away from that as much as possible.

Lots of the studies have shown that eating fat and even saturated fat does not increase MARKERS of poor health. But more research has shown that it can still create the diseases regardless of  the markers present. Having low cholesterol is an indication, and only an indication, that you are healthy regarding heart disease. I am not against fat at all, I am just pointing this out. Also, most of these studies have been done whilst in a caloric deficit. It is the caloric deficit and not necessarily the type of food we are eating which create the health markers.

Quote:

Not sure on this one, i have heard about people who do marathons come out with less muscle.  But i think the running once or twice a week, not for extreme distance is fine. But i also think its more about how we run now. We were never meant to run with supporting shoes, we were meant to run barefoot. Besides loosing muscle due to marathon running, i believe that shoes are what are causing people to have knee problems. I use to run with new balance shoes, i switched to Nike Free shoes, and i can just run a lot longer with no pain to my legs at all. It also strengthens my ankles and feet muscles to support the impact from running and walking, which is beneficial to a golf game. Want a stable golf swing, strengthen your ankles by balance and getting rid of supportive shoes.

Yeah cardio cuts down the Mtor pathways (muscle building) and amps up AMPK pathways (catabolic for muscle). But in reality, it is probably negligible to overall muscle loss/gain unless youa re killing it for hours every week. Saevel is right about knee injuries. Plus most of the studies show youa re just as likely to have knee injuries regardless of whether you are running or not. Seems like you cant outrun your genetics/ageing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

Its been a while since i researched weight lifting, i know there are some myths involved with reps, but i can't remember. I do know there was a study done showing that outside the first set you do, your not gaining any significant gains. So really if you know your weight and reps, just do one set, anything after that isn't significant to muscle growth. You basically stressed your muscles enough in the first set for what session.

Simply not true. These studies are ones done on newbies who can basically look at a weight and gain muscle. If you ave anything more than 1 year training experience, one set is not going to stimulate musclee growth. However, it can be an efefctive way to maintain muscle whilst on a caloire deficit.. Although, again, slightly higher volume is going to be more necessary for advanced trainees/people not on drugs.

[Benny NZ]

Originally Posted by Lihu

How much lactic acid is needed to burn more calories?

What is the feeling in the muscles that you should get for optimal burn? Is it enough to get 45 minutes of exercise then let the lactic acid in your muscles burn more calories during recovery?

You just need to lift heavy enough so you fail on the third set (preferably after 12 reps). You definitely feel it ;)

Do large compound exercises to work the big muscles groups and maximise lactic acid stimulation. Bench, t-bar row, squats and deadlifts are great.

45 minutes? Depends what your workout is, but generally that's a good time.

[Lihu]

You just need to lift heavy enough so you fail on the third set (preferably after 12 reps). You definitely feel it ;) Do large compound exercises to work the big muscles groups and maximise lactic acid stimulation. Bench, t-bar row, squats and deadlifts are great. 45 minutes? Depends what your workout is, but generally that's a good time.

Thanks.

[kathybhylton]

Originally Posted by Th3R00st3r

My wife is going to a dietician and has her on a low carb diet. The macro ratio is 45/35/20 protien/fat/carb. She lost 8lbs the first week and has tapered off to losing about 1-2 lbs a week currently. The key is not to cut out carbs completely, but sugar carbs for sure. If you look at the carbs on the nutrition label she can take the total carbs - fiber - sugar alcohol and that will give her the total carbs she is ingesting for that meal. They want her to get as much good carbs and limit the bad (sugar) carbs to 45g. Labels have been indicating “net carbs” as well as “total carbs”. Net Carbs are determined by taking the total carb count, then subtracting carbs from fiber and carbs from sugar alcohols.

I am doing this with her for support, and I could lose 10-15 lbs as well.  Basically we cut out the starchy foods (potatoes, rice, breads etc..) or limit the net carbs to 45g for her and 120g for me. We are preparing more of our meals and staung away from packaged processed foods. We have protien shakes and bars for snacks as well as almonds etc..My buddy had me watch this video. It's an explanation in a very simplistic form.

Informative! Thanks for sharing..

[Adam Young]

Lustig is a quack with an agenda. He makes up a load of bull to fit his agenda, which doesnt even fit with the scientific evidence.

Obesity is a result of overconsuming calories and not burning enough..... FULL STOP

The average American consumes between 2700-3000 calories a day now compared with 30 years ago being more 2,200 - 2,500. Add to this more sedentary lifestyles and you have a recipe for obesity and its' related diseases.  Carbs are only to blame if eating them causes an excess in calorie consumption or somehow lowers metabolic rate (which it doesnt - eating carbs actually raises leptin levels and raises metabolic rate). but again, this comes down to energy in vs energy out.

And insulin doesn't cause obesity. Even if the role of insulin was to store carbs as fat (which it is not), it can't magic energy out of thin air. If my blood was injected with insulin and I ate only 1,000 calories a day, I would not gain weight. Even if all of that 1000 calories was instantly converted to fat, my body still burns 2000 caloires at some point - this comes from fat stores and so the net result is minus 1000. Again, this is not just an opinion that is more logical that this guys' argument, it is FACT backed up by several studies in controlled settings. here's one for shits and giggles http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357

Why do people want to completely ignore the laws of physics which are supported in diet trials and studies? Everyone is looking at this way too intricately. You are all looking at such small parts of the big picture - analyzing the omplex interactions between cells and insulin and ghrelin. WIDEN OUT YOUR VIEW, you will see that it only looks at one side. The real answer is much much simpler than all this boloney about how insulin and carbs makes us fat.

[Elmer]

I am no expert on any of this. However I know for me and only me. It has taken more than calorie in Vs calorie burned. I am only 5'6" and weight 220. I have always been pudgy. Even when I was playing lacrosse and running alot when I was 15 to 18, I still have a gut and chubby cheeks. Now that I am in my late, late 30's I have become much more conscience about my health and I am trying to get in shape. I began eating healthy breakfest-lean protein shake snack-yogurt lunch-salad w/ 2 eggs & bannan snack-apple w/almonds dinner-chicken & some veggies late night snack-rice cake w/hummas I bought a tread mill and started running 2 miles a day During my lunch break I walk for 1/2hour and also walk on my 15 minute break. And all this led to me gaining weight, up 10 lbs. I was 210 during the golf leauge (april to aug). even thought I was drinking alot more beer on golf nights, I guess it was countered by my walking the course (which is hilly). I have a hard time believing that my eating healthy and running (which at the end of my run I am soaked) has led to NO results. So I dont think a simple "diet plan" works the same for everyone. or I could be a medical anomoly. But I am going to try alot of the advice I see here. Hopefully I can get down to 200 by the start of the next golf season!

[saevel25]

I am slightly more towards saying its overall caloric intake, but i am going to go what works with me. For me, carbs don't sit well. I found when i went to a lower carb diet, i felt a lot better, just did. I am going to go with what my body says. I will adjust to account for working out more (carbs before/after working out), but i wont be having a pile of rice for dinner anytime soon, or eating oatmeal for breakfast.

I will blame carbs for a few particular reason.

they are cheap and easily accessible. The dollar cost per gram of carb compared to fat and protein is absurdly different.  These foods in particular are latent with chemicals and usually high in sugar.

This makes me wonder, fat taste good, i enjoy eating bacon, i am one of many who think it belongs in its own food group, its that good. Sorry had to promote the awesomeness of bacon :p But, so is sugar, sugar has been shown to have a chemical reaction in the brain that releases pleasure hormones. Basically human's are driven by pleasure seeking reward based systems. When a baby cries its nurtured, it learns that comfort. If a young kid falls down and scraps his/her knee and doesn't see the mother worry, the kid will likely not cry. If the mother looks worried, the kid will cry. Its really amazing how the brain works. If we are constantly feeding ourselves products filled with sugar, that make use feel good, then we will seek it, its built into us to do so.

So i might say that, instead of a war on carbs, i would put a war on sugar. Because i don't crave potatos like i crave a good candy bar, there is definetly a significant difference in those carbs.

So i am not saying this in terms of what makes you fat, i am saying this in what might cause us to eat more. Some people might find it hard to stop eating these type of foods because they psychological can't. Its also way to easy to slip back into a pattern of buying easy accessible foods that are not good for you.

For me personally, i will still try to keep my carbs under 200 grams per week, especially keeping the sugar down as much as possible.