Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Desire to be slim vs desire to eat crap

13

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Bruno26 wrote: »
    Thanks for telling me paleo isn't hflc- I never knew that! A combination of both!

    It is the only sustainable way if you want to avoid counting calories and yo-yo dieting for a lifetime.

    Its not a combo of both, paleo is not a low carb diet.

    Stating something is "the only way" is nearly always untrue, as it is in this case. You can drop weight without counting calories very very easily.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    I don't think going cold turkey on something that most of the country consider a huge part of their diet for the rest of your life is a sustainable option.

    A huge part of the worlds diet. It is - People just don't want to do it enough -its about commitment at the start but it becomes easy and eventually its just a way of life. It's all about controlling the appestat.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    2379236-0147643373-94PvO.gif


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Bruno26 every single time you post here it turns into a crusade. Do not post in this thread again.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Its not a combo of both, paleo is not a low carb diet.

    Stating something is "the only way" is nearly always untrue, as it is in this case. You can drop weight without counting calories very very easily.

    Paleo done right is low carb. The top paleo gurus advise a certain carbohydrate intake daily to lose fat and to sustain it. Usually below 150g carbs or preferably below 100g carbs daily.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    Oryx wrote: »
    Bruno26 every single time you post here it turns into a crusade. Do not post in this thread again.

    Can I post in the weight watchers thread instead?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 979 ✭✭✭Bruno26


    2379236-0147643373-94PvO.gif

    Thats class- very funny.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,299 ✭✭✭gordongekko


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    I would have said the exact opposite. In my opinion if it's not quantifiable it's not real. I weigh myself twice a week, and record my weight and body fat% in an excel sheet, so I can monitor progress on a graph.
    I find it helpful because every now when my diet starts slipping, it's easy to convince myself that there was no ill effect my looking in the mirror, but the numbers don't lie.

    Of course the numbers lie. If you are just after eating or drank a litre of water you will be heavier than weighing yourself before you do either of these actions.


  • Subscribers Posts: 19,421 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    Bruno26 banned for a week.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,903 ✭✭✭Blacktie.


    Blacktie. wrote: »
    Don't get him started. Honestly just check his post history if you want his opinion on grains. Every thread has been derailed on this discussion on grains, carbs and fat.

    I warned you all!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Blacktie. wrote: »
    I warned you all!

    I should have asked you for the Lotto numbers yesterday.

    :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,985 ✭✭✭Essien


    I should have asked you for the Lotto numbers yesterday.

    :(

    I think even Blacktie will agree when I say that he wasnt exactly going out on a limb or anything :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 440 ✭✭diarmuid05


    There has been repeated call for evidence from both sides.... so i went to look for some


    http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Essien wrote: »
    I think even Blacktie will agree when I say that he wasnt exactly going out on a limb or anything :D

    I think even Blacktie will agree I wasn't exactly being serious ;)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,903 ✭✭✭Blacktie.


    diarmuid05 wrote: »
    There has been repeated call for evidence from both sides.... so i went to look for some


    http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/

    Issues I see here-

    1- No one is advocating low fat. Low fat would mess with your hormones and everyone here agrees low fat is bad.

    2- Low carb diets are always going to lose more TOTAL bodyweight. Low carb= lower water retention.

    3- It's been agreed several times that low carb is good for the majority of people. But to say it's the only way and force it on people is idiotic at best and dangerous at worst.

    4- Wheat and sugar being the devil isn't mentioned at all. Just saying.

    Also this is hugely important!
    "Most of the studies are being conducted on people with health problems, including overweight/obesity, type II diabetes and metabolic syndrome."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 440 ✭✭diarmuid05


    RE: Sugar

    Lots of info here with references

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/sugar-killing-us-sweetly/5367250

    haven't read it all yet :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,903 ✭✭✭Blacktie.


    There's only so much I can read in work ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    Of course the numbers lie. If you are just after eating or drank a litre of water you will be heavier than weighing yourself before you do either of these actions.

    That's hardly a lie, if you weigh 100kg, and drink a kg of water, you then weight 101kg.
    I know what your saying, there can be small spikes from day to day, but over time it balances out, the graph will have general up/down trend depending on how good my diet is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    diarmuid05 wrote: »
    RE: Sugar

    Lots of info here with references

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/sugar-killing-us-sweetly/5367250

    haven't read it all yet :)


    Nice links but not what was requested - specifically proof that eliminating gains and sugars from a diet will result in weight loss despite a calorie surplus.

    Also, what Blacktie said.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    That's hardly a lie, if you weigh 100kg, and drink a kg of water, you then weight 101kg.
    I know what your saying, there can be small spikes from day to day, but over time it balances out, the graph will have general up/down trend depending on how good my diet is.

    Measuring fat % is notoriously unreliable, especially in a home environment. Judging your success by how your clothes fit is a good yardstick, especially for people that are doing resistance training as the scales wouldn't be a true indicator then.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,903 ✭✭✭Blacktie.


    Measuring fat % is notoriously unreliable, especially in a home environment. Judging your success by how your clothes fit is a good yardstick, especially for people that are doing resistance training as the scales wouldn't be a true indicator then.

    Everyone has their own method. What will work for one person won;t for the next. The scales can be a good measurement if the daily fluctuations are ignored and overall picture is the focus.

    And on the point of people resistance training. If doing resistance training while in a deficit fat loss will nearly always be faster than muscle growth. Isn't the plateau in weight due to a few other factors such as increased water retention in muscles etc. Can't be just down to muscle growth anyway. Even in noob gains it's not going to be overly substantial to make up for an effective fat loss strategy.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Blacktie. wrote: »
    Everyone has their own method. What will work for one person won;t for the next. The scales can be a good measurement if the daily fluctuations are ignored and overall picture is the focus.

    And on the point of people resistance training. If doing resistance training while in a deficit fat loss will nearly always be faster than muscle growth. Isn't the plateau in weight due to a few other factors such as increased water retention in muscles etc. Can't be just down to muscle growth anyway. Even in noob gains it's not going to be overly substantial to make up for an effective fat loss strategy.

    If it works for you then sure, keep going with it.

    Water retention is often mentioned but it is finite and evens out after a short time. Going purely by the scales when you are doing strength work will not give you a fair picture.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    Measuring fat % is notoriously unreliable, especially in a home environment. Judging your success by how your clothes fit is a good yardstick, especially for people that are doing resistance training as the scales wouldn't be a true indicator then.

    I agree the fat % is usually wrong, but I do think it's proportional, for example if you go from 20% to 15% body fat on your scales, you may not actually have 15% fat, but you probably have lost 25% of your body fat. So it's not accurate, but it is useful.Especially when lifting weights a lot, because you could lose quite a bit of fat, and game the same mass in muscle, so mass alone is deceiving.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,903 ✭✭✭Blacktie.


    Water retention is often mentioned but it is finite and evens out after a short time. Going purely by the scales when you are doing strength work will not give you a fair picture.

    Yeah I'd agree with that but then were is the extra weight coming from? It's not going to be muscle growth because that takes far longer than what you can lose in fat week to week.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,802 ✭✭✭✭Alf Veedersane


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    I agree the fat % is usually wrong, but I do think it's proportional, for example if you go from 20% to 15% body fat on your scales, you may not actually have 15% fat, but you probably have lost 25% of your body fat.

    If you're using one of those bio-impedence machines/scales then the proportional change can be out of what as well. So unless your hydration level is exactly the same each time you use it, then it's going to be skewed.

    Not to mention the fact that a lot of machines are missing out on large parts of the body. You might have shed bodyfat from the upper half of your body but that won't be reflected in something like a Tanita machine.

    I'd take measurements from those machines with a grain of....actually, scratch that. Avoid grains of ANYTHING.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,522 ✭✭✭runawaybishop


    Nino Brown wrote: »
    I agree the fat % is usually wrong, but I do think it's proportional, for example if you go from 20% to 15% body fat on your scales, you may not actually have 15% fat, but you probably have lost 25% of your body fat. So it's not accurate, but it is useful.Especially when lifting weights a lot, because you could lose quite a bit of fat, and game the same mass in muscle, so mass alone is deceiving.

    Muscle is a lot denser than fat though, your body shape will be of more use than the scales there. Its not an either/or equation though, do both and you can be doubly confident you are moving in the right direction.
    Blacktie. wrote: »
    Yeah I'd agree with that but then were is the extra weight coming from? It's not going to be muscle growth because that takes far longer than what you can lose in fat week to week.

    Once water retention balances out its probably poop, you'd be surprised at how much the body can hold - up to almost 2 stone.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,507 ✭✭✭Nino Brown


    You might have shed bodyfat from the upper half of your body but that won't be reflected in something like a Tanita machine.

    Is that even possible? I was under the impression that the body burned fat evenly, it might be more obvious is some places, but proportionally fat loss is even?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,903 ✭✭✭Blacktie.


    Once water retention balances out its probably poop, you'd be surprised at how much the body can hold - up to almost 2 stone.

    Haha that's pretty funny! BUt surely this can easily be negated by having a set time and routine you weigh yourself everyday?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,481 ✭✭✭have2flushtwice


    my motto is that healthy eating starts at the shopping basket, not what's in the press or fridge.
    buy smaller bars, or a different treat, chocolate in the house makes it easier to access. If you really really want it, then cycle to a shop further away than the nearest one, and then have it. a few calories burned on the way.


Advertisement