carbs n calories

all_smilz

whats the story with going low carb? I am on and off looking at ways to avoid bread and pasta etc. I dont think I wanna go totally off them cos I love my oats in the morning and the occasional slice of brown bread...

Do you count calories while cutting carbs? IE find out ur recommended calorie intake and use those calories on proteins and good fats?

I am trying to lose weight, but as I said I am not gonna go militant on it. From past experience I am used to counting calories so it would be easy to keep doing it that way...
Would it make sense to count my calories and just try to ditch the carbs as much as I can, while having good proteins and so on?

Thanks!

Roger Marbles

There is no scientific evidence that low carbs diet are superior to other forms. What I would recommend is a diet that emphasises natural unprocessed food such as meat, fish, eggs, veg and fruit over those based on wholegrains etc. These diets typically generate a calorie deficit without needing to calorie count, are more filling than alternatives and way healthier.

Mellor

Roger Marbles wrote: »

There is no scientific evidence that low carbs diet are superior to other forms.

Maybe, for a given calorie intake, assuming the basic requirements are met.
But when people reduce carbs they naturally reduce calories, even with an increase in protein/fat. ie cut 200g of carbs, but only add 50g protein in its place.

Roger Marbles

Mellor wrote: »

Maybe, for a given calorie intake, assuming the basic requirements are met.
But when people reduce carbs they naturally reduce calories, even with an increase in protein/fat. ie cut 200g of carbs, but only add 50g protein in its place.

There is no maybe about it. When people reduce protein, they naturally reduce calories, same for fat.

The poster was asking about low carb diets, there's no evidence to support them. That is not to say that omitting refined carbs and replacing them with veg and fruit wouldn't be a bad option, it would great for anyone to do.

vard

Calories, I would say, are the easiest way of going about it.

What goes in what goes out - it's that simple.

With a calorie deficit diet you can eat whatever you want, mounds of icecream if you so choose, and as long as it's somewhere under your basal metabolic rate you'll lose weight.

Mellor

Roger Marbles wrote: »

There is no maybe about it. When people reduce protein, they naturally reduce calories, same for fat.

Obviously.
What's they got to do with what I said.

To Repeat. You said there is no benefit to low carb. I said maybe there isn't if calories are the same. But when people switch to low carb high protein then tend to eat less calories. Which is the benefit. (Just like people tend to eat less calories when paleo). Which will help OPs goals.
What exactly are you disagreeing with.

El_Dangeroso

Roger Marbles wrote: »

There is no scientific evidence that low carbs diet are superior to other forms.

Sorry to nitpick, but in the short-term there totally is. Low-carb diets cause stronger hunger supression and a larger calorie deficit in general, not for everyone, but on average. You don't even have to go very low carb to feel the benefit anything less than 150g/day can be considered LC.

They don't suit everyone but when they do they work well.

OP, try counting carbs and stick to ~100g/day and see how you go. If that doesn't work count the calories too to see what's causing you to go over. Cheese and nuts are the usual offenders.

saa

I watch calories and keep the carbs to a minimum compared to how I used to eat as I found if I was eating the same food as I used to I'd have to have very small portions to be the same calories as a lot of the fat/protein based food I put an effort to stick to now.

I still eat all those carby foods but not as much, I used to have 500 calorie noodles now once in a while I'll have the smaller pack that is 100-250 calories.
I used to be able to eat 1000 calories of pasta no problem but now it would have to be a small handful portion on the side of my plate so there would be other foods as well.
I still eat potatoes but try and buy sweet potato, I don't focus on weight loss as I've eaten right, exercised right, tried to take in all the conflicting advice and as soon as I hit a plateau that was it motivation was scrambled. So I like to focus on how the food makes me feel, white carbs trigger cravings for me, a small amount is alright anyway everything in moderation and all that.

Oh and the only other thing I can think of is improving the quality of carbs, no frozen chips, processed over refined stuffs, I stick to wholemeal its not perfect I do eat a lot of wheat but meh its better to eat better for good than eat the best for a few weeks and give up do whats manageable.

rocky

Roger Marbles wrote: »

There is no scientific evidence that low carbs diet are superior to other forms. What I would recommend is a diet that emphasises natural unprocessed food such as meat, fish, eggs, veg and fruit over those based on wholegrains etc. These diets typically generate a calorie deficit without needing to calorie count, are more filling than alternatives and way healthier.

Roger Marbles wrote: »

There is no maybe about it. When people reduce protein, they naturally reduce calories, same for fat.

The poster was asking about low carb diets, there's no evidence to support them. That is not to say that omitting refined carbs and replacing them with veg and fruit wouldn't be a bad option, it would great for anyone to do.

Roger, someone must have hacked your account... Or you had a change of mind since you posted this :

Roger Marbles wrote: »

Based on biochemistry we can hypothesise from various angles that dietary carbohydrate intake is the most significant contributor to bodyfat accumulation. Other macronutrients less so.
...
It's more than just losing weight, it's about losing bodyfat for most which why the simplified calories in/out argument is an oversimplification and why hormones such as insulin/hormone sensitive lipase actually are important.

Roger Marbles

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Sorry to nitpick, but in the short-term there totally is. Low-carb diets cause stronger hunger supression and a larger calorie deficit in general, not for everyone, but on average. You don't even have to go very low carb to feel the benefit anything less than 150g/day can be considered LC.

They don't suit everyone but when they do they work well.

OP, try counting carbs and stick to ~100g/day and see how you go. If that doesn't work count the calories too to see what's causing you to go over. Cheese and nuts are the usual offenders.

Can you link a metabolic ward study that shows that an isocaloric low carb diet is superior to other isocaloric diets?

Mellor

Roger Marbles wrote: »

Can you link a metabolic ward study that shows that an isocaloric low carb diet is superior to other isocaloric diets?

I was under the impression that an isocaloric diet has macros approaching a 33/33/33 split. somewhat equal calories for fats/carbs/proteins.
So how could one be low carb and another not?

If you to were trying say that the two diets have similar calorie totals. Then you are ignoring the following

Low-carb diets cause stronger hunger supression and a larger calorie deficit in general

Which has been stated a few times by different people. There's no point discussing anything is you simply ignore everyone.

Hanley

Parallel points are being argued here.

The main reason low carb diets are better is because adherence is easier (appetite surpression and muted insulin response)

Roger Marble's point, I believe, and one that I agree with is that if you assume 100% adherence, food quality and macro split doesn't seem to matter (assuming a constant level of protein).

BUT that's just pure mental masturbation because it's not practical in the real world.

Spideog Rua

Why is protein more of an appetite suppressant than carbs? Are different types of protein more effective than others?

seamus

Spideog Rua wrote: »

Why is protein more of an appetite suppressant than carbs?

It's not entirely known. At the moment it's believed to be due to various chemicals from digesting the protein, triggering the appropriate receptors in the brain - high-protein intake triggers these receptors quicker than high-fat or high-carb intake and thus you feel full quicker.

It's most likely an evolutionary response as a diet consisting only of protein or of excessive amounts of protein can result in serious health issues or death (in the case of a protein-only diet). So the body naturally encourages you to eat just the protein that you need (as it can't store any excess), but gather as much fat and carb as you can (which it can store for later use).

Hanley

Spideog Rua wrote: »

Why is protein more of an appetite suppressant than carbs? Are different types of protein more effective than others?

Higher peptide YY secretion for one, and increased protein and reduced carbs may also lead to decreased leptin resistance but that's more of an indirect effect.

Hopefully someone can flesh this out a bit more.

rocky

Hanley wrote: »

BUT that's just pure mental masturbation because it's not practical in the real world.

Counting calories is not practical?
Low fat is not practical? People were losing weight with these before.

Not to everybody's taste, sure, just like some people can gain weight or not lose anymore on a low carb diet if eating to satiation.

Mellor

rocky wrote: »

Counting calories is not practical?
Low fat is not practical? People were losing weight with these before.

Where did anyone say that either of those weren't practical?

I took it that Hanley was referring to the fact that you'll lose weight no matter what you eat if you adhere to a calorie intake (eg the twinkie diet study).
But it just isnt a practical plan, as eating high sugar and high calorie foods could increase cravings, make it more likely that you overeat (in terms of calories), and in general stack the odds against you sticking to the intake target.
I mean, it should be totally obvious that eating what ever you want is not only not practical, it's pretty stupid.

Hanley

rocky wrote: »

Counting calories is not practical?
Low fat is not practical? People were losing weight with these before.

Not to everybody's taste, sure, just like some people can gain weight or not lose anymore on a low carb diet if eating to satiation.

What?!!? No?!!?!

It's not practical to eat a sugar and protein only diet (fr example) because IN THE REAL WORLD no one could adhere to it becaue it would send your energy and hunger levels up and down.

So it makes more sense and is easier to eat a diet that seeks to stabilize hunger and energy fluctuations. And that just happens to be a moderate/low carb approach.

As I've said, high carb can work, but practically it's harder to implement and sustain.

Does that not make sense??

Hanley

Mellor wrote: »

Where did anyone say that either of those weren't practical?

I took it that Hanley was referring to the fact that you'll lose weight no matter what you eat if you adhere to a calorie intake (eg the twinkie diet study).
But it just isnt a practical plan, as eating high sugar and high calorie foods could increase cravings, make it more likely that you overeat (in terms of calories), and in general stack the odds against you sticking to the intake target.
I mean, it should be totally obvious that eating what ever you want is not only not practical, it's pretty stupid.

Bingo.

rocky

Hanley wrote: »

What?!!? No?!!?!

It's not practical to eat a sugar and protein only diet (fr example) because IN THE REAL WORLD no one could adhere to it becaue it would send your energy and hunger levels up and down.

So it makes more sense and is easier to eat a diet that seeks to stabilize hunger and energy fluctuations. And that just happens to be a moderate/low carb approach.

As I've said, high carb can work, but practically it's harder to implement and sustain.

Does that not make sense??

Your post said that anything outside a low carb diet is not practical in the real world.

The main reason low carb diets are better is because adherence is easier (appetite surpression and muted insulin response)

Plenty of unprocessed carbohydrates being part of the diet means it's not a low carb diet. Decrease fat, add potatoes, keep protein the same. How is this less practical than the low carb version? Potatoes spike insulin... and then what, you want to eat more?

The choice is not between low-carb and 'sugar and protein diet', there are plenty of other less extreme diets, moderate carb, even high carb, if you enjoy unprocessed carbohydrates.

If you want no argument from me, stop saying low carb is better 'in the real world'.

rocky

Mellor wrote: »

Where did anyone say that either of those weren't practical?

I took it that Hanley was referring to the fact that you'll lose weight no matter what you eat if you adhere to a calorie intake (eg the twinkie diet study).
But it just isnt a practical plan, as eating high sugar and high calorie foods could increase cravings, make it more likely that you overeat (in terms of calories), and in general stack the odds against you sticking to the intake target.
I mean, it should be totally obvious that eating what ever you want is not only not practical, it's pretty stupid.

Lets agree that high sugar or high processed carb diets are crap, impractical etc.

Low carb diets are not the only practical alternative to the above crap diets, 'better' in the real world etc.

If we agree that, over and out

Jarren

Orla K

Jarren wrote: »

Popcorn! What are you thinking far too many carbs

Hanley

rocky wrote: »

Your post said that anything outside a low carb diet is not practical in the real world.

If you're going to argue with me, please argue with what I said.

I said... "food quality and macro split doesn't seem to matter (assuming a constant level of protein)"

My point being, eating terrible food quality and a really carb heavy approach isn't sustainable because the quality of the food is crap. I specifically mentioned food quality.

Plenty of unprocessed carbohydrates being part of the diet means it's not a low carb diet. Decrease fat, add potatoes, keep protein the same. How is this less practical than the low carb version? Potatoes spike insulin... and then what, you want to eat more?

See above re: food quality.

The choice is not between low-carb and 'sugar and protein diet', there are plenty of other less extreme diets, moderate carb, even high carb, if you enjoy unprocessed carbohydrates.

If you want no argument from me, stop saying low carb is better 'in the real world'.

Yes, there are. But this is the internet and polarising arguments are what is done. I even mentioned moderate carb diets.

I'll say what I want, I believe low carb (and by low I mean 100-150g carbs daily, so we're clear) are more sustainable in the real world. If you don't agree, that's fine. It's a matter of personal opinion anyway.

You, sir, are worse than Hitler. *Godwin's Law implemented, /thread

Seriously, I think we're agreeing on more than we disagree and you're just so contrarian re: low carb diets that you're looking for things I didn't say just so you can beat the high carb drum.

I could care less about macro splits tbh. Food quality is far more important, in my opinion. Would you not agree?

And I'd go on to say that if you're eating "good quality" foods like meat and veg, nuts and seeds, fruit and a small bit of starch, you're more likely to end up low/moderate carb by default (100-250g carbs daily).

So, what are we disagreeing on now?

rocky

We agree on a lot; it was only the formulation that didn't sit well with me.

I tend to disagree with generally prescriptive diets that are too restrictive for no good reason. It's fine if you say 'for some people, this may work'.

Not for everybody. There are zillions of examples of people on low carb diets
20+ pounds away from weight goal and not able to lose anymore for various reasons, low thyroid being a possibility plus the fact that you can store calories without carbs...

Food quality is far more important, in my opinion.

depends on so many definitions that is mostly meaningless. What is food quality? To give you an example, which of the following 2 diets is easier to follow in the real world, and therefore more practical:
- diet 1: unprocessed food + 2 choc brazil nuts
- diet 2: unprocessed food (same quantities as diet 1) + {chicken, coconut oil and green veggies} so that the macros are the same as the 2 brazil nuts. This of course without counting

do the 2 brazil nuts really matter? If they don't 'really' matter, why impose such restrictions on people, so they can come back after 1 week/1 year with their food issues still not resolved, fatter than before?

And I'd go on to say that if you're eating "good quality" foods like meat and veg, nuts and seeds, fruit and a small bit of starch, you're more likely to end up low/moderate carb by default (100-250g carbs daily).

see? you've done it again. why not some nuts? nuts are more damaging to someone wanting to lose weight. Boiled potatoes (starch) have [one of] the highest satiety indexes known. Replacing almost anything else in a diet with potatoes will decrease intake as if by magic. Should I postfix this with 'for some people'? I dunno, if you find someone that can get fat on potatoes, I'll change it...

I said my piece, I won't be commenting in this thread...

... unless someone talks smack about insulin :pac:

Hanley

rocky wrote: »

We agree on a lot; it was only the formulation that didn't sit well with me.

I tend to disagree with generally prescriptive diets that are too restrictive for no good reason. It's fine if you say 'for some people, this may work'.

Not for everybody. There are zillions of examples of people on low carb diets
20+ pounds away from weight goal and not able to lose anymore for various reasons, low thyroid being a possibility plus the fact that you can store calories without carbs...



depends on so many definitions that is mostly meaningless. What is food quality? To give you an example, which of the following 2 diets is easier to follow in the real world, and therefore more practical:
- diet 1: unprocessed food + 2 choc brazil nuts
- diet 2: unprocessed food (same quantities as diet 1) + {chicken, coconut oil and green veggies} so that the macros are the same as the 2 brazil nuts. This of course without counting

do the 2 brazil nuts really matter? If they don't 'really' matter, why impose such restrictions on people, so they can come back after 1 week/1 year with their food issues still not resolved, fatter than before?



see? you've done it again. why not some nuts? nuts are more damaging to someone wanting to lose weight. Boiled potatoes (starch) have [one of] the highest satiety indexes known. Replacing almost anything else in a diet with potatoes will decrease intake as if by magic. Should I postfix this with 'for some people'? I dunno, if you find someone that can get fat on potatoes, I'll change it...

I said my piece, I won't be commenting in this thread...

... unless someone talks smack about insulin :pac:

General posts are general. Please read as such.

El_Dangeroso

Roger Marbles wrote: »

Can you link a metabolic ward study that shows that an isocaloric low carb diet is superior to other isocaloric diets?

Where on earth did I say that?? I actually elicited the mechanism of how low carb does better in studies and how it's because the diets are NOT isocaloric, sheesh.

A lot of strawmans on this thread as far as I can see. No where did anyone say 'ZOMG! Low carb for everybodeeee!!!' but some posters are treating it as such.

Roger Marbles

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Where on earth did I say that?? I actually elicited the mechanism of how low carb does better in studies and how it's because the diets are NOT isocaloric, sheesh.

A lot of strawmans on this thread as far as I can see. No where did anyone say 'ZOMG! Low carb for everybodeeee!!!' but some posters are treating it as such.

I misunderstood your initial post. Apologies.

Red Cortina

Just to throw my 2c into the mix...

Hanley wrote: »

My point being, eating terrible food quality and a really carb heavy approach isn't sustainable because the quality of the food is crap. I specifically mentioned food quality.

Yep, I totally agree.

Hanley wrote: »

And I'd go on to say that if you're eating "good quality" foods like meat and veg, nuts and seeds, fruit and a small bit of starch, you're more likely to end up low/moderate carb by default (100-250g carbs daily).

I know that particular dietary prescription comes from the Crossfit folks but my mind absolutely boggles at it. This is the dietary recommendation for folks who are routinely hitting the gym and training hard? Who are most likely not one of the 11% of the population who are diabetic? Folks who would actually benefit from eating a few spuds or the like? It really doesn't make any sense to me

rocky wrote: »

I said my piece, I won't be commenting in this thread...

... unless someone talks smack about insulin :pac:

That would have been me a year ago, I'm afraid. Unfortunately I've come to the conclusion that there is an awful lot I don't know and that that Carbsane lady is awful smart:P

Hanley

Red Cortina wrote: »

I know that particular dietary prescription comes from the Crossfit folks but my mind absolutely boggles at it. This is the dietary recommendation for folks who are routinely hitting the gym and training hard? Who are most likely not one of the 11% of the population who are diabetic? Folks who would actually benefit from eating a few spuds or the like? It really doesn't make any sense to me

I'm confused by your confusion.

Anyone with a decent knowledge of nutrition within crossfit is pretty quick to say that if you're doing highly glycolytically demanding activities (ala CF) then you need to add in additional carb sources from potato, sweet potato or even rice.

But if you're a random dude or girl doing 3 WODs a week, I don't think you need to think you should eat like a professional athlete.

Actually, that's another rant. Why the f*ck do people have recovery shakes after barely breaking a sweat in the gym or out on the roads? Like they don't need that sh*t. Just because you're in the gym or doing a bit of training doesn't mean you need to fuel yourself like a professional f*cking athlete.

That's actually something that wrecks my head!!!

So, if you're asking does a normal person doing CF 3x per week need loads of carbs (ie >250g), I say, HELL NO. If they're doing multiple daily workouts and stuff, then yes, certainly.

Red Cortina

Hanley wrote: »

Anyone with a decent knowledge of nutrition within crossfit is pretty quick to say that if you're doing highly glycolytically demanding activities (ala CF) then you need to add in additional carb sources from potato, sweet potato or even rice.

Then why the recommendation for little starch? Saying little starch to me would mean less than 50g/day? Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here but saying that you need to eat little starch suggests that the likes of potatos and rice are in short supply (or even off the table) as per the CF dietary recommendations...

Hanley wrote: »

But if you're a random dude or girl doing 3 WODs a week, I don't think you need to think you should eat like a professional athlete.

I get that you are comparing a regular dude/dudess on the street with a professional athlete but that is not really what I'm talking about. I still question whether the 'little starch' recommendation is even appropriate for regular folks on the street who are only doing a few WODs/week.

Hanley

Red Cortina wrote: »

Then why the recommendation for little starch? Saying little starch to me would mean less than 50g/day? Maybe we are talking at cross purposes here but saying that you need to eat little starch suggests that the likes of potatos and rice are in short supply (or even off the table) as per the CF dietary recommendations...

Because it's pitched at people who don't know better. People who think a balanced meal a burger AND chips. I'd have thought anyone who actually cared about their nutrition would have looked into it enough to know the difference?

Plus these people are being coached and getting recommendations based off their needs (hopefully). It's a general guideline, generally speaking. Without specifics attached to it. Treat it as such.

I get that you are comparing a regular dude/dudess on the street with a professional athlete but that is not really what I'm talking about. I still question whether the 'little starch' recommendation is even appropriate for regular folks on the street who are only doing a few WODs/week.

If you're really fat and out of shape, like the majority of the population, yes, it is.

Dave!

I'm trying to lose a bit of weight (bit of a belly is all), and my mate is trying to send me in a particular direction with this. He's mad into his fitness and nutrition, but I'm pretty sure most of what he comes out with is old wives' tales and assumptions.

My argument to him is that if I want to lose weight, I just need to eat less (take in less calories), and exercise (burn) more. I think it's pretty widely accepted that this results in weight loss, but he's arguing this even. He reckons I should forget about calories and instead make sure I eat X carbs, Y protein, and Z something else.

I'm more inclined to go with what the research suggests, and to the best of my knowledge the most successful and sustainable long-term methods of weight-loss/control focus on calorie restriction and exercise, paying little attention to the composition of the food.

Assuming one has a generally balanced diet and doesn't consume lots of saturated fats or something, am I right in my thinking?

His other argument is in relation to regularity of meals and metabolism, and I think he's probably right about this one. I don't know much about metabolism, but AFAIK eating smaller, regular meals results in a higher (?) metabolic rate. Are there studies that suggest that this is likely to contribute to weight-loss also? Or does any effect get over-shadowed by the effect of low caloric intake?

I'd be interested in reading a study of people who lost weight on calorie-restrictive diets, and then compared how regularly they ate to see what difference it made.

Cheers!

edit

Also wondering about processed vs. non-processed food -- does this make a difference in terms of weight-loss?

boomtown84

Dave! wrote: »

I'm trying to lose a bit of weight (bit of a belly is all), and my mate is trying to send me in a particular direction with this. He's mad into his fitness and nutrition, but I'm pretty sure most of what he comes out with is old wives' tales and assumptions.

My argument to him is that if I want to lose weight, I just need to eat less (take in less calories), and exercise (burn) more. I think it's pretty widely accepted that this results in weight loss, but he's arguing this even. He reckons I should forget about calories and instead make sure I eat X carbs, Y protein, and Z something else.

I'm more inclined to go with what the research suggests, and to the best of my knowledge the most successful and sustainable long-term methods of weight-loss/control focus on calorie restriction and exercise, paying little attention to the composition of the food.

Assuming one has a generally balanced diet and doesn't consume lots of saturated fats or something, am I right in my thinking?

His other argument is in relation to regularity of meals and metabolism, and I think he's probably right about this one. I don't know much about metabolism, but AFAIK eating smaller, regular meals results in a higher (?) metabolic rate. Are there studies that suggest that this is likely to contribute to weight-loss also? Or does any effect get over-shadowed by the effect of low caloric intake?

I'd be interested in reading a study of people who lost weight on calorie-restrictive diets, and then compared how regularly they ate to see what difference it made.

Cheers!

edit

Also wondering about processed vs. non-processed food -- does this make a difference in terms of weight-loss?

You BOTH need to read the stickies!!:D

rocky

Dave! wrote: »

My argument to him is that if I want to lose weight, I just need to eat less (take in less calories), and exercise (burn) more. I think it's pretty widely accepted that this results in weight loss, but he's arguing this even. He reckons I should forget about calories and instead make sure I eat X carbs, Y protein, and Z something else.

You're correct, he's not. Make sure your protein is enough though ("read the stickies").

I'm more inclined to go with what the research suggests, and to the best of my knowledge the most successful and sustainable long-term methods of weight-loss/control focus on calorie restriction and exercise, paying little attention to the composition of the food.

Assuming one has a generally balanced diet and doesn't consume lots of saturated fats or something, am I right in my thinking?

I think you're right, with the exception of demonising sat fat - it's probably better than polyunsaturated omega 6 fat (corn, sunflower etc oil).

His other argument is in relation to regularity of meals and metabolism, and I think he's probably right about this one. I don't know much about metabolism, but AFAIK eating smaller, regular meals results in a higher (?) metabolic rate. Are there studies that suggest that this is likely to contribute to weight-loss also? Or does any effect get over-shadowed by the effect of low caloric intake?

You're both wrong on this one.
One meal a day is fine. 10 meals a day is crazy, but fine. Read up on intermittent fasting www.leangains.com

I'd be interested in reading a study of people who lost weight on calorie-restrictive diets, and then compared how regularly they ate to see what difference it made.

I'm sure there are studies at the site above that show no difference between meal frequencies, even a slight advantage to concentrating them into an eating window of about 8 hours. e.g. eat 1pm-9pm, fast 9pm-1pm

Also wondering about processed vs. non-processed food -- does this make a difference in terms of weight-loss?

Personally, I deliberately avoid gluten. That's it. Because some people tolerate it badly, and I'm one of them. Most of my meals are cooked from scratch, but not because I think processed food is bad, I just enjoy it more like this and never got into the pre-packaged meals, crisps etc.

edit: I have the 3 rules of losing fat in my sig!

El_Dangeroso

Dave! wrote: »

I'm trying to lose a bit of weight (bit of a belly is all), and my mate is trying to send me in a particular direction with this. He's mad into his fitness and nutrition, but I'm pretty sure most of what he comes out with is old wives' tales and assumptions.

My argument to him is that if I want to lose weight, I just need to eat less (take in less calories), and exercise (burn) more. I think it's pretty widely accepted that this results in weight loss, but he's arguing this even. He reckons I should forget about calories and instead make sure I eat X carbs, Y protein, and Z something else.

I'm more inclined to go with what the research suggests, and to the best of my knowledge the most successful and sustainable long-term methods of weight-loss/control focus on calorie restriction and exercise, paying little attention to the composition of the food.

Assuming one has a generally balanced diet and doesn't consume lots of saturated fats or something, am I right in my thinking?

His other argument is in relation to regularity of meals and metabolism, and I think he's probably right about this one. I don't know much about metabolism, but AFAIK eating smaller, regular meals results in a higher (?) metabolic rate. Are there studies that suggest that this is likely to contribute to weight-loss also? Or does any effect get over-shadowed by the effect of low caloric intake?

I'd be interested in reading a study of people who lost weight on calorie-restrictive diets, and then compared how regularly they ate to see what difference it made.

Cheers!

edit

Also wondering about processed vs. non-processed food -- does this make a difference in terms of weight-loss?

Hi Dave,

You are correct that it comes down to calories. But humans are not robots so consciously reducing calories while eating the same food has a pitiful adherence record for most people.

That's where I think eating unprocessed food makes the difference. I mean unprocessed food as food that is ingredients, not made of ingredients in a factory.

Stephan Guyenet is a post-doc researcher in the neurobiological causes of obesity and he posits that processed food is actually designed to overcome our innate satiety mechanisms and make us want to overeat. I think as a science-y guy you'd appreciate his writings. Here's an overview of his theory on boingboing:

http://boingboing.net/2012/03/09/seduced-by-food-obesity-and-t.html

and he also has an excellent blog:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/10/case-for-food-reward-hypothesis-of.html

and

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/10/case-for-food-reward-hypothesis-of_07.html

are seminal posts of his work.

My favourite is this one:

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/body-fat-setpoint.html

One pound of human fat contains about 3,500 calories. That represents roughly 40 slices of toast. So if you were to eat one extra slice of toast every day, you would gain just under a pound of fat per month. Conversely, if you were to eat one fewer slice per day, you'd lose a pound a month. Right? Not quite.

How is it that most peoples' body fat mass stays relatively stable over long periods of time, when an imbalance of as little as 5% of calories should lead to rapid changes in weight? Is it because we do complicated calculations in our heads every day, factoring in basal metabolic rate and exercise, to make sure our energy intake precisely matches expenditure? Of course not. We're gifted with a sophisticated system of hormones and brain regions that do the calculations for us unconsciously*

With me I eat a lot of home-cooked from scratch food, with very moderate carb restriction (100g-150g a day - but I'm not super active so a gym-rat would need more) and I find this makes keeping my calories low sooo much easier than eating a lot of pre-prepared and convenience food.

Not that good food can't be convenient. My favourite lunch at the moment is a tin of sardines in a bit of reheated rice, covered in tamari and a little coconut oil.

And btw, most people on here think there is nothing wrong with saturated fat and that it has been unfairly demonised based on shoddy science, but that's a whole 'nuther can of worms.

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

You're both wrong on this one.
One meal a day is fine. 10 meals a day is crazy, but fine. Read up on intermittent fasting www.leangains.com

I'd be careful with the leangains approach, I don't believe in the 10 meals a day thing, 2-3 is probably better. But I got bad hypoglycaemic episodes from having a daily short eating window. Fasting daily is not intermittent, it's chronic. I fast for 16 hours about once a week, which I think gives a benefit, but anymore and I run into issues. Maybe it's because I'm a woman I don't know.

rocky

I think he recommends 14 hours fasting for women, 16 for men, but whatever works... I had a few days of 22-23 hours fast.

How many hours into fasting did you get hypoglycaemic?

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

I think he recommends 14 hours fasting for women, 16 for men, but whatever works... I had a few days of 22-23 hours fast.

How many hours into fasting did you get hypoglycaemic?

I'd eat the night before about 7pm. Then around the next day at 11am I'd start to feel very ropey, light-headed with a speedy pulse rate, but with zero hunger. This happens consistently about 2-3 days into IF. A dose of lucozade and I feel much better.

rocky

That's pushing 16 hours of fasting. Is it possible your liver glycogen is depleted by then, especially if you're moderate/low carb?

El_Dangeroso

rocky wrote: »

That's pushing 16 hours of fasting. Is it possible your liver glycogen is depleted by then, especially if you're moderate/low carb?

Yeah but I used to be straight up ketogenic for about 18 months and I never had that issue, In fact even a small protein meal will prevent it from happening. I dunno, maybe my adrenals aren't as good as they used to be. I've read about a lot of people having similar experience, hence why I caution. BTW never had an issue with the once a week fast.

I mean fasting is supposed to be a hormetic stress, I just don't see where the hormesis comes from doing things every single day. I just think it's asking a lot of your body long term.

all_smilz

I have been logging on and off to read posts the last few days and to be honest my question isnt really answered.

I am basically cutting out bread, crisps, chips, pastries, white pastas and rices- leaving me with potatoes, brown rice, pasta, cous cous and oats.

I am more accustomed to counting calories than knowing how many g of carbs/protein are in food and just wanted to know would decreasing carb as above and increasing good quality protein (in the theme of going moderate carb) make sense with a calorie counting diet? I like the idea of greens and a steak being satisfying and healthy etc.

Ye really get into the nitty gritty and thats great and v interesting but a little out of my understanding....

DOH!

Orla K

all_smilz wrote: »

I have been logging on and off to read posts the last few days and to be honest my question isnt really answered.

I am basically cutting out bread, crisps, chips, pastries, white pastas and rices- leaving me with potatoes, brown rice, pasta, cous cous and oats.

I am more accustomed to counting calories than knowing how many g of carbs/protein are in food and just wanted to know would decreasing carb as above and increasing good quality protein (in the theme of going moderate carb) make sense with a calorie counting diet? I like the idea of greens and a steak being satisfying and healthy etc.

Ye really get into the nitty gritty and thats great and v interesting but a little out of my understanding....

DOH!

The answer is probably maybe. Keeping it simple is eat real food(no packets with a list of ingredients) loads of veg, eat enough protein and then just figure out what's best for you by playing around with how much of carbs/fat you eat.

Personally I find higher fat suits me and I'm much healthier on it, I keep portion sizes normal, stop when I'm full and don't track anything(but at the start to get an idea it would be a good idea to track)

If you want to try moderate carbs go ahead, but personally I'd get rid of pasta and wheat altogether and stick to better carbs. I'm not sure if there is a difference between brown/white/basmati rice.

Keep reading threads here, eventually you'll start understanding stuff