Running and eating low-carb?

This Fat Girl Runs

Is being a runner and eating low-carb doable? Is it advisable?

Of course every runner is different and body type, metabolism and muscle tone are a factor so maybe, for some runners, maybe going low-carb would be feasible? I just wanted to see what other people might think.

Run and Jump

I consulted a nutritionist this year, who advised me to stick to a balanced diet with good hydration and where every meal is 1/3 protein, 1/3 fruit or veg and 1/3 carb. Carbs are necessary for everyone, including runners, for physical and mental energy, but I think I had been overdoing the bread, pasta and sugary fruit. A balanced diet saw me reduce my excess carb intake while still having enough carbs. Before long runs and races I topped up the carbs a little but not with huge extra plates of pasta.

As a result I had a good diet and I shed a few kilos and a few minutes off my race times.

The major caveat here, of course, is that diet is a personal thing and any radical changes should be checked with a doctor or nutritionist first. What works for some mightn't work for others.

Krusty_Clown

Personally I'd be of the opinion that carbs are an important part of a distance runner's diet, but I can't be blind to the fact that there are many runners (many of whom are quite successful) who follow diet plans that feature low intakes of carboydrates (for example, Paleo, Barry Murray's Optimum Nutrition etc).

On the balance of things, the fastest marathon runners in the world eat high carb diets, and that certainly paints a picture, but we're not the fastest marathon runners in the world here on Boards, so diets with a different focus may also be just as relevant. If your focus is not distance running, then certainly there's room for low-carb diets. A well-balanced diet with an eye towards avoiding processed foods is typically what will yield the greatest gains in terms of weight management, performance and health.

clear thinking

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

Is being a runner and eating low-carb doable? Is it advisable?

Of course every runner is different and body type, metabolism and muscle tone are a factor so maybe, for some runners, maybe going low-carb would be feasible? I just wanted to see what other people might think.

There is an awful lot of guff out there about diet. New Scientist debunks a lot of them http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26549-14-myths-and-maybes-about-burning-fat.html?cmpid=ILC|NSNS|2014-10-GLOBAL-topteaserbarlinks|hometopteaser&utm_medium=ILC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=Topteaserbarlinks&utm_content=hometopteaser

For example, multiple small meals rather than 3 decent meals is touted as a way to keep your metabolism going, turns out to be BS.

Or, to your question, eating fat to burn fat is also BS. There is little difference between high fat-low carb and low fat-high carb diets.

Some extra protein MAY make you feel fuller and help burn a few extra calories, 60-120 per day, thats about 7-14grams of olive oil or butter

ger664

My view is similar to KC. Carbs are essential but that is nutrient dense carbs and not your processed white/sugary carbs. A balanced diet is essential, plenty of veg and fruit with wholemeal grain is the way to go for carbs and have an adequate level of protein especially oily fish which as an island nation we don't eat half enough of.

This Fat Girl Runs

I'm wondering now, after reading your responses, just what 'low-carb' really means.

Occasionally I keep a food diary, and this week have started one just to see how I'm doing. I don't eat processed foods, most of my intake is fresh food or homemade.

Yesterday I ate 72.73g of protein and 195.94g carbohydrates (most of which comes from fruit and this week also the lentil/barley soup I made for my lunches at work). Overall calories from yesterday was 1474.76. Today will be the same.

I would consider that to be high carb, but I can't see how I can lower that so maybe I'm eating low-carb without realising it?

clear thinking

Seems normal, the only thing you didn't mention was fats, are you eating the good stuff, avocados, olive oil, nuts etc.?

This Fat Girl Runs

clear thinking wrote: »

Seems normal, the only thing you didn't mention was fats, are you eating the good stuff, avocados, olive oil, nuts etc.?

I had 43.29g of fat. The two biggest culprits were the hummous which I had with lunch, and a pat of butter I had at dinner. Oh, and some some peanut butter.

pistol_75

What goals are you trying to achieve from your diet? and if you feel like it maybe give us a breakdown of what your meals/snacks are for a typical day.

Krusty_Clown

I don't know about low-carb, but it sounds like a perfectly healthy diet to me! You never really explained why you were considering changing your diet. Is it about weight management?

TRR has a very good (but flippant) post about the simplicity of weight management. Not suggesting that you eat quite the same amount of purple snacks, but the approach to analysis and action is worth reviewing.

inigo

I suggest reading Tim Noakes' book Challenging Beliefs (Part 3 - Nutrition 101). Be warned it's controversial, but it comes from a scientist who never claims to have the absolute truth, which is precisely a central part of the book, hence its title.

This Fat Girl Runs

pistol_75 wrote: »

What goals are you trying to achieve from your diet? and if you feel like it maybe give us a breakdown of what your meals/snacks are for a typical day.

I'm trying to ensure I get a ratio of protein/carb where it's more even. 40% protein, 40% carb, something like that. I don't 'diet' really, I've been eating the same way for a couple of years now because it's healthy and sustainable, for me at least. But because I'm running now and doing weights and pilates, I want to be sure my muscles are getting the right amount of protein.

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I don't know about low-carb, but it sounds like a perfectly healthy diet to me! You never really explained why you were considering changing your diet. Is it about weight management?

TRR has a very good (but flippant) post about the simplicity of weight management. Not suggesting that you eat quite the same amount of purple snacks, but the approach to analysis and action is worth reviewing.

That's a great post! But I don't eat any of the stuff mentioned in it! I don't eat chocolate, crisps or cakes or cookies and haven't had a fizzy drink in 3 years. I have the occasional beer like once every other weekend (and when I say one, I really mean one!). I very rarely eat bread. I don't add sugar to anything, I only drink water and decaf coffee (no milk, no sugar). Anyway, it's good advice to cut out the bad stuff, but I've already done that ages ago!

Actually, to heck with it. Here's a google doc to show you what I had yesterday. It's a very typical day for me, except for dinner. I don't usually eat potato but I had a craving so I indulged!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LiF-OEQx0F5wO9iBVQ-1NHbZFFFbPzCZ6ykZSnSBFMU/edit?usp=sharing

menoscemo

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

I'm trying to ensure I get a ratio of protein/carb where it's more even. 40% protein, 40% carb, something like that. I don't 'diet' really, I've been eating the same way for a couple of years now because it's healthy and sustainable, for me at least. But because I'm running now and doing weights and pilates, I want to be sure my muscles are getting the right amount of protein.



That's a great post! But I don't eat any of the stuff mentioned in it! I don't eat chocolate, crisps or cakes or cookies and haven't had a fizzy drink in 3 years. I have the occasional beer like once every other weekend (and when I say one, I really mean one!). I very rarely eat bread. I don't add sugar to anything, I only drink water and decaf coffee (no milk, no sugar). Anyway, it's good advice to cut out the bad stuff, but I've already done that ages ago!

Actually, to heck with it. Here's a google doc to show you what I had yesterday. It's a very typical day for me, except for dinner. I don't usually eat potato but I had a craving so I indulged!

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LiF-OEQx0F5wO9iBVQ-1NHbZFFFbPzCZ6ykZSnSBFMU/edit?usp=sharing

I think you would be better off posting this in the health and Fitness Forum (specifically the N&D subsection) for more detailed and knowledgeable replies, but to my untrained eye you are
a) undereating compared to activity levels. Your calories burned through excercise are almost equal to calories consumed, giving you a net intake of pretty much zero.
b) you seem to be eating way too little protein. The only decent source of protein seems to be a single pork chop for dinner

This Fat Girl Runs

menoscemo wrote: »

I think you would be better off posting this in the health and Fitness Forum (specifically the N&D subsection) for more detailed and knowledgeable replies, but to my untrained eye you are
a) undereating compared to activity levels. Your calories burned through excercise are almost equal to calories consumed, giving you a net intake of pretty much zero.
b) you seem to be eating way too little protein. The only decent source of protein seems to be a single pork chop for dinner

I thought of posting elsewhere but my question is specifically because I want to aid/improve my running by changing my protein:carb ratio. Because of my running I know carbs are important, that's why I asked the question here. I'm ok if a mod feels they have to move this thread though.

I do know I don't eat enough protein (although the lentils/pulses etc I eat are a good source too). What I don't know is a) I could possibly eat any more than I already do b) what carbs I can drop to bring the ratio more in line and c) if that's a wise thing to do, as a runner.

generic2012

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

I'm wondering now, after reading your responses, just what 'low-carb' really means.

Occasionally I keep a food diary, and this week have started one just to see how I'm doing. I don't eat processed foods, most of my intake is fresh food or homemade.

Yesterday I ate 72.73g of protein and 195.94g carbohydrates (most of which comes from fruit and this week also the lentil/barley soup I made for my lunches at work). Overall calories from yesterday was 1474.76. Today will be the same.

I would consider that to be high carb, but I can't see how I can lower that so maybe I'm eating low-carb without realising it?

That's nearly 800 calories from carbs, over half of your calories. The scientific literature has differing opinions on the definition of 'low carb', but low carb (/high fat) advocates seem to define LC as either <20 g or <50 g of carbs. These numbers are given regardless of age, height, weight, sex, activity level or lean body mass.

LC advocates tend to follow a few authors of books rather than actual information. These authors have a massive following of people who post on forums that only like minded people post on reinforcing their ideas.

Science has not found the benefits these authors (eg. Robb Wolfe, Tim Noakes and Mark Sisson) claim. The LC community uses the same technique as UFO believers, 911 skeptics and Climate change deniers etc. - conspiracy claims. The government, big agriculture, food companies and independent scientists want to kill the people financing them through diet, and they suppress evidence showing the benefits of LC and make up evidence against it.

Some people may get benefits from a LC diet as high fat foods can make certain people full quicker and/or longer, especially if those high fat foods are also high protein. Any weight loss from LC is not because of LC per se but rather its effect on overall consumption. I would endlessly on LC/High fat foods so it wouldn't work for me.

You count calories so there is no benefit to doing this, also carbs lend themselves to physical activity much more than fats. I would advice you to search for independent research and opinion on the matter as there is a high carb community equally as blinkered as the low carb. Be careful not to get sucked in my sciencey sounding language, if you read about insulin being evil it's a sign to hit backspace.

This Fat Girl Runs

generic2012 wrote: »

That's nearly 800 calories from carbs, over half of your calories. The scientific literature has differing opinions on the definition of 'low carb', but low carb (/high fat) advocates seem to define LC as either <20 g or <50 g of carbs. These numbers are given regardless of age, height, weight, sex, activity level or lean body mass.

LC advocates tend to follow a few authors of books rather than actual information. These authors have a massive following of people who post on forums that only like minded people post on reinforcing their ideas.

Science has not found the benefits these authors (eg. Robb Wolfe, Tim Noakes and Mark Sisson) claim. The LC community uses the same technique as UFO believers, 911 skeptics and Climate change deniers etc. - conspiracy claims. The government, big agriculture, food companies and independent scientists want to kill the people financing them through diet, and they suppress evidence showing the benefits of LC and make up evidence against it.

Some people may get benefits from a LC diet as high fat foods can make certain people full quicker and/or longer, especially if those high fat foods are also high protein. Any weight loss from LC is not because of LC per se but rather its effect on overall consumption. I would endlessly on LC/High fat foods so it wouldn't work for me.

You count calories so there is no benefit to doing this, also carbs lend themselves to physical activity much more than fats. I would advice you to search for independent research and opinion on the matter as there is a high carb community equally as blinkered as the low carb. Be careful not to get sucked in my sciencey sounding language, if you read about insulin being evil it's a sign to hit backspace.

Thanks for that. I wouldn't be a fan of a high fat diet myself. I'm just trying to bring my carbs down and protein up. As you say, carbs lend themselves to physical activity so I'm wondering if I actually should lower my carb intake.

As for counting calories, I only do that twice a year. I do a week long food diary in the spring and again in the winter. Just to see where I'm at.

generic2012

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

Thanks for that. I wouldn't be a fan of a high fat diet myself. I'm just trying to bring my carbs down and protein up. As you say, carbs lend themselves to physical activity so I'm wondering if I actually should lower my carb intake.

As for counting calories, I only do that twice a year. I do a week long food diary in the spring and again in the winter. Just to see where I'm at.

I don't know any of your stats but 1,400 calories is very low for anyone who exercises. Protein requirements are inversely correlated with calorie intake, so when calories are higher protein requirements are lower and vice versa. This is because fat tissues often cannot provide energy quick enough (if running or anything that raises your heart rate much above normal levels) and glucose/glycogen may not be in enough supply, so protein may have to be used as an emergency energy source. This is only likely with a low calorie diet so extra protein should be eaten to buffer potentially negative outcomes.

As to lowering your carb intake it depends on your goals. Fore performance that is the last thing you should do, for weight loss it's calories that matter. But be cognisant of the fact that if you are using exercise as a means to weight loss, lower carbs will reduce your capacity to exercise and hence reduce it's effects on weight loss.

The best advice would be not to try and lose weight too fast as large calorie deficits are associate with muscle loss, the higher the deficit the greater the effect. This is bad as your metabolism will suffer. It has also been shown that the slower your weight loss the more likely you are to maintain that weight loss.

This Fat Girl Runs

generic2012 wrote: »

I don't know any of your stats but 1,400 calories is very low for anyone who exercises. Protein requirements are inversely correlated with calorie intake, so when calories are higher protein requirements are lower and vice versa. This is because fat tissues often cannot provide energy quick enough (if running or anything that raises your heart rate much above normal levels) and glucose/glycogen may not be in enough supply, so protein may have to be used as an emergency energy source. This is only likely with a low calorie diet so extra protein should be eaten to buffer potentially negative outcomes.

As to lowering your carb intake it depends on your goals. Fore performance that is the last thing you should do, for weight loss it's calories that matter. But be cognisant of the fact that if you are using exercise as a means to weight loss, lower carbs will reduce your capacity to exercise and hence reduce it's effects on weight loss.

The best advice would be not to try and lose weight too fast as large calorie deficits are associate with muscle loss, the higher the deficit the greater the effect. This is bad as your metabolism will suffer. It has also been shown that the slower your weight loss the more likely you are to maintain that weight loss.

Thanks for that. It makes sense.

I'm not trying to lose weight exclusively. I mean I'm not running and working out in order to lose weight. I'm doing it to be healthy. I've been eating healthy for 3 years, running for a year and a half and working out with a trainer for 6 months (twice a week) and I haven't lost more than a few kilos. Instead, I've lost inches and put on muscle. And I'm ok with that. I know that as my muscle tone improves my metabolism will improve and that will benefit my running.

I've guessed for a while that I don't eat enough, I just struggle with finding ways to eat more than I already do. I thought that changing my protein:carb intake would help. Maybe I was wrong. It seems to be the general sense I'm getting from replies to my post.

RacoonQueen

LCHF diets aren't necessarily that low in carbs, they're a change to the type of diet that has become the norm (cereals, bread, pastas etc) they generally look at eating the right things at the right time.

Barry Murray, who trained on LCHF and now works with BMC professional cycling team (who would require a slightly different approach but would still largely be LCHF) and Martin McDonald who is a big advocate of it also will offer up some good reading for you.

These are more about eating whole foods rather than processed food than anything else.

Many people would say they feel better on this type of 'diet' because they're not get the insulin spikes that carbs can give, hence why you'll hear them talk of nutrient timing.

From your response to meno is sounds like you are reluctant to add more protein?

generic2012

RacoonQueen wrote: »

LCHF diets aren't necessarily that low in carbs, they're a change to the type of diet that has become the norm (cereals, bread, pastas etc) they generally look at eating the right things at the right time.

Barry Murray, who trained on LCHF and now works with BMC professional cycling team (who would require a slightly different approach but would still largely be LCHF) and Martin McDonald who is a big advocate of it also will offer up some good reading for you.

These are more about eating whole foods rather than processed food than anything else.

Many people would say they feel better on this type of 'diet' because they're not get the insulin spikes that carbs can give, hence why you'll hear them talk of nutrient timing.

From your response to meno is sounds like you are reluctant to add more protein?

Not to be confrontational but if 'LCHF diets aren't necessarily that low in carbs' they wouldn't be called low carb diets. What is wrong with eating 'cereals, breads & pasta' as part of a balanced diet? Cheery picking athletes who do well in sports looks good initially but it's kind of dishonest to not also mention that the vast vast majority of athletes and, as far as I know, most of the best athletes in the their respective sports, will implement a high carb diet. Any sports scientists I have ever read all promote high carb diets too. The 'insulin is evil' argument holds no water and, along with nutrient timing, has been thoroughly debunked.

Sorry if that seemed harsh, but you are recommending a low carb diet but then protect yourself from any rebuttal by saying 'These are more about eating whole foods rather than processed food than anything else'.

You are either advocating it or you aren't, it's not fair to be so obtuse when someone is looking for specific advice.

RacoonQueen

generic2012 wrote: »

Not to be confrontational but if 'LCHF diets aren't necessarily that low in carbs' they wouldn't be called low carb diets. What is wrong with eating 'cereals, breads & pasta' as part of a balanced diet?

Processed foods with no real nutritional value. You can get good quality carbs elsewhere.

Can't really be arsed discussing the rest of it with you. You look like you're after one thing and I can't be bothered.
However, if you read enough about the supposed LCHF diets (I don't think Barry or Martin for example refer to it as that really it's more of what Noakes has named it that has stuck) you would see they are not necessarily low carb at all - they're lower than what we've transitioned too via processed crap but they still promote the intake of good quality carbohydrates. Plenty of science to it...nutritionists will contradict each other all the time based on their own studies and experience. What Barry and Martin advocate is based on their studies and experience and show nutrient timing to be effective.

A few people on here would have similar diets to what the 'LCHF' advocates TFGR's I'm sure they'll be able to post more info on the idea for you.

This Fat Girl Runs

RacoonQueen wrote: »

LCHF diets aren't necessarily that low in carbs, they're a change to the type of diet that has become the norm (cereals, bread, pastas etc) they generally look at eating the right things at the right time.

Barry Murray, who trained on LCHF and now works with BMC professional cycling team (who would require a slightly different approach but would still largely be LCHF) and Martin McDonald who is a big advocate of it also will offer up some good reading for you.

These are more about eating whole foods rather than processed food than anything else.

Many people would say they feel better on this type of 'diet' because they're not get the insulin spikes that carbs can give, hence why you'll hear them talk of nutrient timing.

From your response to meno is sounds like you are reluctant to add more protein?

I'd be ok adding protein, I'm more unsure HOW to add more protein without adding fat. I really don't want to add fat. I'm pretty good at avoiding processed foods, I cook for myself and make most of my meals from scratch. I'm not sure if what I do eat counts as whole foods though.

This Fat Girl Runs

generic2012 wrote: »

Not to be confrontational but if 'LCHF diets aren't necessarily that low in carbs' they wouldn't be called low carb diets. What is wrong with eating 'cereals, breads & pasta' as part of a balanced diet?

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Processed foods with no real nutritional value. You can get good quality carbs elsewhere.

I should clarify, I'm not looking to cut out cereals and grains and pasta altogether, though I have drastically reduced my bread intake and now rarely eat it.

generic2012

RacoonQueen wrote: »

Processed foods with no real nutritional value. You can get good quality carbs elsewhere.

Can't really be arsed discussing the rest of it with you. You look like you're after one thing and I can't be bothered.
However, if you read enough about the supposed LCHF diets (I don't think Barry or Martin for example refer to it as that really it's more of what Noakes has named it that has stuck) you would see they are not necessarily low carb at all - they're lower than what we've transitioned too via processed crap but they still promote the intake of good quality carbohydrates. Plenty of science to it...nutritionists will contradict each other all the time based on their own studies and experience. What Barry and Martin advocate is based on their studies and experience and show nutrient timing to be effective.

A few people on here would have similar diets to what the 'LCHF' advocates TFGR's I'm sure they'll be able to post more info on the idea for you.

I just don't know why someone would willingly label a diet that isn't low in carbohydrates as 'low carb', it just seems me to be willfully causing confusion.

Sorry, I'll clarify, when I say science/studies, I mean independent, controlled studies published in peer reviewed journals.

Enduro

The best bit of advice on this thread so far is to look for good science to back up any given piece of advise. There are a lot of people with quasi-religous views on nutrition, so you get a lot of deeply held opinions. The best thing you can do is question absolutely everything and try to find out if there is any good eveidence to support any given opinion. Nutrition is an area where there is an awful lot of relatively poor quality science, so it is quite hard to pick out what's good and what's not. There is also an awful lot of baseline startpoints (like "fat is bad", "carbs are necessary for running") that seem very obvious, but don't necessariily have anything more than tradition rather than evidence to back them up. The history of science is littered with "obvious truths" which turn out to be spurios or wrong (like "the earth is flat", or a more recent well known example throroughly debunked "nothing can live in the stomach"). It's also always worth checking who is funding any given research.

Anyone who says you need carbs for long distance running is plain wrong. I doubt you'll find a poster on this forum who has run longer distances than me, and the last thing I'd want to be doing on long distance runs is eating carbs. I'd regard it as counter-productive to eat carbs on long distance runs.

As for general diet, there's lots of interesting reading and viewing out there. Barry Murray's site OptimumNutrtion4Sport has already been mentioned (Barry has been a team mate of mine on the Irish team at the World ultra-trail running championships, and is a very accomplished ultrarunner himself, as well as being a highly respected sports nutritionist). Another good one (on general nutrition, not specifically sport) is Authority Nutrition. It's great for reference the science behind the articles, and also has a good section on how to differenciate between the different types of research).

You'll find plenty of ideas and examples out there about how to change your diet to have less carbs and more fat and protein.

Enduro

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

I'd be ok adding protein, I'm more unsure HOW to add more protein without adding fat. I really don't want to add fat.

Why don't you want to add fat? Are you starting from the viewpoint that "Fat is bad"?

This Fat Girl Runs

Enduro wrote: »

Why don't you want to add fat? Are you starting from the viewpoint that "Fat is bad"?

Good question. I'm starting from the viewpoint that I have enough fat on me to last a good while before I need to add any to my diet. I know certain kinds of fat are beneficial, and I'm not opposed to those when I need them. I just don't think I need any kind of fat right now.

For the sake of clarity, I'm 5 foot 7 and weigh 16.5 stone (105.3 kilos). I've been around this weight for the last three or so years. My thyroid is normal, my blood is normal, I'm slightly iron deficient but not anemic. Everything works fine, my heart, lungs etc. My cholesteral is normal. Everything about me is normal.

SamforMayo

You are saint if you exist on that. Are trying to drop weight?

This Fat Girl Runs

SamforMayo wrote: »

You are saint if you exist on that. Are trying to drop weight?

Not specifically no! To me, that's actually a lot of food, I feel like I'm constantly eating. Hence the asking for advice, I know things need to change but I want to change in a way that will help my running, not hinder it.

Enduro

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

Good question. I'm starting from the viewpoint that I have enough fat on me to last a good while before I need to add any to my diet. I know certain kinds of fat are beneficial, and I'm not opposed to those when I need them. I just don't think I need any kind of fat right now.

For the sake of clarity, I'm 5 foot 7 and weigh 16.5 stone (105.3 kilos). I've been around this weight for the last three or so years. My thyroid is normal, my blood is normal, I'm slightly iron deficient but not anemic. Everything works fine, my heart, lungs etc. My cholesteral is normal. Everything about me is normal.

Eating fish doesn't make you a better swimmer. Eating vegetables doesn't turn you into a vegetable. Eating fat doesn't make you fat! I think your startpoint is one of the "obvious" ideas in nutrition that in reality is at best disputed, and possibly just plain wrong. Avoid processed fats (especially trans-fats) for sure, but there is a growing body of evidence and opinion which debunks the "fat makes you fat" idea. In fact the reverse is quite often the case, as most low-fat foods replace fat with sugar (which is much more likely to actually cause you to get fatter and more unhealthy).

It sounds like you're generally on the right track anyway. You've taken the most important step of choosing to try to eat as healthily as possible.

generic2012

There is definitely a lot of promising data coming out on high fat diets for ultra endurance athletes all right. It will be very interesting to see how it affects certain sports. I don't think the benefits are useful to your average jogger though.

generic2012

Enduro wrote: »

Eating fish doesn't make you a better swimmer. Eating vegetables doesn't turn you into a vegetable. Eating fat doesn't make you fat! I think your startpoint is one of the "obvious" ideas in nutrition that in reality is at best disputed, and possibly just plain wrong. Avoid processed fats (especially trans-fats) for sure, but there is a growing body of evidence and opinion which debunks the "fat makes you fat" idea. In fact the reverse is quite often the case, as most low-fat foods replace fat with sugar (which is much more likely to actually cause you to get fatter and more unhealthy).

It sounds like you're generally on the right track anyway. You've taken the most important step of choosing to try to eat as healthily as possible.

I agree here, the evidence conclusively says it's calories that will make you gain weight. Eat more calories than your body needs and you will gain weight, regardless if they are from carbs, fat or protein.

Krusty_Clown

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

I'd be ok adding protein, I'm more unsure HOW to add more protein without adding fat.

One thing that struck me from your food diary was the hummus. Chick peas are a good source of protein, but in your food diary the quantity of protein was pretty low. Skip the Tescos hummus and make your own. It's cheaper, takes only a minute or two (if you have a food processor) and is far tastier. Sure it includes fat, but they're good fats. Eat with some vegetables (carrots, cucumber, broccoli) and you've got a great meal, with a good mix of carbs and protein (personally, I eat it with pita bread or bagels, but I run a lot of miles and like my carbs!).

SamforMayo

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

Not specifically no! To me, that's actually a lot of food, I feel like I'm constantly eating. Hence the asking for advice, I know things need to change but I want to change in a way that will help my running, not hinder it.

Do you eat eggs? Great source of protein and so handy.

This Fat Girl Runs

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

One thing that struck me from your food diary was the hummus. Chick peas are a good source of protein, but in your food diary the quantity of protein was pretty low. Skip the Tescos hummus and make your own. It's cheaper, takes only a minute or two (if you have a food processor) and is far tastier. Sure it includes fat, but they're good fats. Eat with some vegetables (carrots, cucumber, broccoli) and you've got a great meal, with a good mix of carbs and protein (personally, I eat it with pita bread or bagels, but I run a lot of miles and like my carbs!).

I've actually considered getting a mini food processor for that reason.

SamforMayo wrote: »

Do you eat eggs? Great source of protein and so handy.

I do but not on a regular basis, maybe once every couple of weeks? Good idea though!

generic2012

Protein powder is nearly pure protein.

This Fat Girl Runs

Enduro wrote: »

Eating fish doesn't make you a better swimmer. Eating vegetables doesn't turn you into a vegetable. Eating fat doesn't make you fat! I think your startpoint is one of the "obvious" ideas in nutrition that in reality is at best disputed, and possibly just plain wrong. Avoid processed fats (especially trans-fats) for sure, but there is a growing body of evidence and opinion which debunks the "fat makes you fat" idea. In fact the reverse is quite often the case, as most low-fat foods replace fat with sugar (which is much more likely to actually cause you to get fatter and more unhealthy).

It sounds like you're generally on the right track anyway. You've taken the most important step of choosing to try to eat as healthily as possible.

generic2012 wrote: »

I agree here, the evidence conclusively says it's calories that will make you gain weight. Eat more calories than your body needs and you will gain weight, regardless if they are from carbs, fat or protein.

Well, luckily for me I haven't gained any weight in the last three years. I just haven't lost any either. But the point of my asking the question was could I lower my carbs in a way that won't have an adverse effect on my running, not how can I lose weight. The goal, for me, is to be healthy, not to be skinny. It's possible to be one without the other.

But I'm getting a little confused here, so I think I need to take some time to think it all through and do some research into the science. I saw a nutritionist last year (who said I was one of the healthiest clients she had seen) and I think I might go back to her again for more advice.

It's an interesting conversation though, just a lot of information and opinions to take in!

generic2012

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

Well, luckily for me I haven't gained any weight in the last three years. I just haven't lost any either. But the point of my asking the question was could I lower my carbs in a way that won't have an adverse effect on my running, not how can I lose weight. The goal, for me, is to be healthy, not to be skinny. It's possible to be one without the other.

But I'm getting a little confused here, so I think I need to take some time to think it all through and do some research into the science. I saw a nutritionist last year (who said I was one of the healthiest clients she had seen) and I think I might go back to her again for more advice.

It's an interesting conversation though, just a lot of information and opinions to take in!

Why would you want to lower your carbs if you don't want to lose weight? Sorry if we're not hitting the nail on the head yet, but we'll get there!

This Fat Girl Runs

generic2012 wrote: »

Why would you want to lower your carbs if you don't want to lose weight? Sorry if we're not hitting the nail on the head yet, but we'll get there!

I'm trying to get to a point where I have an equal ratio of protein:carbs. That means lowering carbs because as you can see, the ratio is way off. I'm trying to get this ratio to help my weight training and pilates be more effective at toning my muscle so that in turn will help me run better.

In my head it makes sense but I could be getting it all wrong!

BabysCoffee

This Kickstarter project may answer your question OP https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/835313616/cereal-killers-2-run-on-fat

generic2012

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

I'm trying to get to a point where I have an equal ratio of protein:carbs. That means lowering carbs because as you can see, the ratio is way off. I'm trying to get this ratio to help my weight training and pilates be more effective at toning my muscle so that in turn will help me run better.

In my head it makes sense but I could be getting it all wrong!

Those ratios are a bit redundant I'm afraid. They don't mean anything in the slightest!

This Fat Girl Runs

generic2012 wrote: »

Those ratios are a bit redundant I'm afraid. They don't mean anything in the slightest!

I'm not sure I get what you mean by redundant? Basically I want to eat the same amount of protein as carbs, which right now, isn't happening. I'm not sure how that is redundant?

clear thinking

As i said at the start, there is a lot of guff out there about diet.

but i have to say to the person dissing bread as having no nutritional value, you are talking rubbish. Bread has sugar, complex carbohydrate, salt, fibre, usually some minerals. If it had no value no one would eat it. Some products contain ash, however that's usually in meat. Processed food in general may be a bit high on salt.
the Tesco houmous is great, save you having to shyte around cleaning up a mess from making it and their best one is the bog standard value pack.
re fats, lash olive oil onto salads, good fats are required and do help keep the arteries clear. I usually have a nice salad with beetroot, tomato hummus & whatever pack of processed leaves are in Tesco with oil vinegar... And a few hempseeds if the budget allows

As an aside, those fish oils are great. But will not make your kids clever, so good ole cod liver oil or linseeds on your porridge then...

generic2012

This Fat Girl Runs wrote: »

I'm not sure I get what you mean by redundant? Basically I want to eat the same amount of protein as carbs, which right now, isn't happening. I'm not sure how that is redundant?

I meant the idea of ratios themselves are redundant. An equal ratio of carbs:protein tells u nothing. It could mean 1 gram of protein, 1 gram of carbs and 900 grams of fat or 500grams of protein carbs and fat. It can mean anything. And ieven at that, there is no benefit to consuming and equal amount of carbs and protein, none whatsoever, at least I can't think of any. Why would there be?

Enduro

generic2012 wrote: »

I don't think the benefits are useful to your average jogger though.

I don't see why not.

ford2600

OP yes you can run on hflc, will it make much of a difference to you, only you can know if you try it. It suits some people others it doesn't at all. Try it if you like, despite your fear of fats it won't kill you. If it doesn't suit you try something else.

The only bad ones are trans fats, avoid processed junk(which you do anyway) and keep heat down when frying and you should be good to go.

I've trained/adapted my body to run on fat, for everything bar very high intensity stuff, but that is not what you asked and it isn't necessary to eat hflc to do so. At 80kgs and 12% bodyfat I have almost 80,000 calories of fat on board and probably 2,500 of glycogen, for everyday chores, low-moderate intensity exercise it makes sense (to me anyway) to use the big fuel tank of diesel over the small tank of rocket fuel!

Enduro

I think you might be over-focussing on ratios.

No matter what the ratio of carbs:fat:protien is the most important thing is that you source your food from the highest quality sources that you can. I.e. natural foods, preferably as close to the source/farm as you can get, with as little processed foods as possible, and cut out junk. I have a personal preference for HFLC style nutrition, but I would still say that its better to eat quality naturally sourced carbs than highly processed fats/proteins.

If you do want to add more protein to your diet it should be pretty easy. As suggested above eggs are one of the best (and totally natural) sources of protein. I'd eat 4 a day at this stage! Any meat or fish will be a great protein source, and will provide tons of other very important nutritional elements. Again, best to cook these from the basic elements... avoid foods in a box! Something as simple as a tin of tuna (in brine, not vegetable oil) for lunch will add quality protein for very little effort.

There are tons of suggest meals plans and suggestion out there for low carb (and therefore higher protein) diets. Any paleo style plans or atkins style plans will have loads of ideas you can draw on. The internet is full of these things.

Again, the big big warning light going off in my head when I read your posts is that you are trying to avoid fats. I don't think that's a good idea at all, particularly if you're trying to reduce your carb consumption. While we have no need for any carbs whatsoever, we do have to consume fats (I presume you'll have heard of essential fatty acids etc). A lot of good natural protein sources will also have plenty of natural fats. This is a good thing, and you should be aiming to increase the amounts of natural fats that you eat, not restrict it (Again, natural non-processed is the important point here).

generic2012

Enduro wrote: »

I don't see why not.

Ok, I'll concede that, it was poorly phrased. This is down to opinion but if glycogen stores run out at around the 25km mark in untrained runners and this can be raised through training, then there is no need for the average jogger to adapt the body to running on fat. Of course it wouldn't be of detriment to the average jogger but, compared to an endurance athlete, the benefits might not outweigh the costs (dietary restrictions, social eating, financial cost etc). Again that's down to opinion.

Enduro

generic2012 wrote: »

Ok, I'll concede that, it was poorly phrased. This is down to opinion but if glycogen stores run out at around the 25km mark in untrained runners and this can be raised through training, then there is no need for the average jogger to adapt the body to running on fat. Of course it wouldn't be of detriment to the average jogger but, compared to an endurance athlete, the benefits might not outweigh the costs (dietary restrictions, social eating, financial cost etc). Again that's down to opinion.

I think we're in broad enough agreement there alright. The average runner who doesn't run for more than 25km / 2hours (obviously rough figures that in reality will differ for each individual) doesn't need to worry about running out of glycogen, or fat adaptation. Energy sources shouldn't be an issue at all once they are eating normally. So no need to worry about fat adaptation, but equally no need to worry about glycogen depletion (so no need for carb loading, gels etc etc)

Krusty_Clown

clear thinking wrote: »

the Tesco houmous is great, save you having to shyte around cleaning up a mess from making it and their best one is the bog standard value pack.

I don't think you're getting the whole unprocessed foods thing. Putting 5 ingredients into a food processor, hitting the 'blitz' button and giving it a rinse out afterwards wouldn't pose a significant challenge for someone who goes to the trouble of making their own lentil/barley soup. But here's the important part: Tesco Value Hummus contains 45% chickpeas. The rest is largely water and cornflour (and some undetermined vegetable oil). This is where Tesco puts the 'value' in. Tesco value Hummus provided 5.4g of protein for every 100g of product. Tesco's own non-value product contains 7.7g of protein/100g. Cooked chickpeas (which should make up 90% of one's hummus), contain 8.8g protein/100g. Tesco 'value' hummus costs '£1'/300g. I made enough hummus this morning for two people (3 minutes work including wash-up), and I reckon it cost less than half that. My closing argument: Taste.

ford2600

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

I don't think you're getting the whole unprocessed foods thing. Putting 5 ingredients into a food processor, hitting the 'blitz' button and giving it a rinse out afterwards wouldn't pose a significant challenge for someone who goes to the trouble of making their own lentil/barley soup. But here's the important part: Tesco Value Hummus contains 45% chickpeas. The rest is largely water and cornflour (and some undetermined vegetable oil). This is where Tesco puts the 'value' in. Tesco value Hummus provided 5.4g of protein for every 100g of product. Tesco's own non-value product contains 7.7g of protein/100g. Cooked chickpeas (which should make up 90% of one's hummus), contain 8.8g protein/100g. Tesco 'value' hummus costs '£1'/300g. I made enough hummus this morning for two people (3 minutes work including wash-up), and I reckon it cost less than half that. My closing argument: Taste.

A fork, a bowl, chickpeas, olive oil, crushed garlic, lemon juice, thaini, chilli powder/cayenne, 5 mins and you have a lovely item to build a meal around.