Advise Please Intermitting Fasting vs high Protein Diet

ConnKib30

Hi.
Any advise would be greatly appreciated. I am a male 35 and I am looking to loose some weight 1 stone roughly if possible. and I have tried out different diets etc. I have access to gym and cardio equipment at home. And I will be following a programme of weights and cardio but my downfall is my diet. Recently I have tried intermitting fasting and I can do very well on it for a few days but come one evening I can just get this urge and eat loads and loads of junk food just to surpress the hunger. I have being loosing weight on it but when the binge comes then the weight just yo yos up and down and really back to square 1. but I am wondering would it be better if I was to try and stick to high protein diet where I wouldn't be missing any meals and I would be having my Breakfast Lunch Dinner etc. I have being consistant with my training but its my diet has being the let down. Again any advise would br great

Alf Veedersane

ConnKib30 wrote: »

Hi.
Any advise would be greatly appreciated. I am a male 35 and I am looking to loose some weight 1 stone roughly if possible. and I have tried out different diets etc. I have access to gym and cardio equipment at home. And I will be following a programme of weights and cardio but my downfall is my diet. Recently I have tried intermitting fasting and I can do very well on it for a few days but come one evening I can just get this urge and eat loads and loads of junk food just to surpress the hunger. I have being loosing weight on it but when the binge comes then the weight just yo yos up and down and really back to square 1. but I am wondering would it be better if I was to try and stick to high protein diet where I wouldn't be missing any meals and I would be having my Breakfast Lunch Dinner etc. I have being consistant with my training but its my diet has being the let down. Again any advise would br great

As with any 'diet', the key is calorie control. For some, intermittent fasting works, for some it doesn't.

A high protein diet might work but it also might not work.

1g protein = 4 cals
1g carbs = 4 cals
1g fat = 9 cals

It doesn't have to be a thing...an 'X diet'. It just needs to be sustainable for you.

Where do you really struggle? Aside from the hunger? There was a reason you tried IF so where do you think you were going wrong before that?

j@utis

Are you skipping breakfast or dinner when doing IF? Going to bed hungry would never work for me but I can easily "forget" breakfast until almost midday, later followed by nice big dinner.

ConnKib30

skipping breakfast. like you I can easily miss breakfast but as the evening progresses I can get very hungry and just go to the press to eat something small and end up eating everything. I suppose when I do eat during the day I may not be eating enough either during the 8 hour period that I am allowed to eat on the intermittinting fasting diet window. like today for i.e I had no breakfast then at 1pm I had a turkey sandwich. 3 litres of water through out the day and then at 5pm I had homemade chicken curry for dinner. And just had a cup of tea here now 8pm and that will be it until 12-1pm tomorrow which I suppose when I look at it now myself that is not enough food intake for the day..

ConnKib30

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

As with any 'diet', the key is calorie control. For some, intermittent fasting works, for some it doesn't.

A high protein diet might work but it also might not work.

1g protein = 4 cals
1g carbs = 4 cals
1g fat = 9 cals

It doesn't have to be a thing...an 'X diet'. It just needs to be sustainable for you.

Where do you really struggle? Aside from the hunger? There was a reason you tried IF so where do you think you were going wrong before that?

To be honest before I was good with my diet and didn't really do Diets just tried to eat clean for majority of the week.But I suppose then the weekend was the let down takeaways drinking etc and then come Monday be good again for the week.. But my training wasn't consistant either, But this time since lockdown Covid 19 I have been very consistant with the training but the diet part has gone out the window and its like I want a quick fix with the IT diet for a few weeks to loose some weight and then switch to a more sustainable diet and keep up the training with it.

Mellor

ConnKib30 wrote: »

i.e I had no breakfast then at 1pm I had a turkey sandwich. 3 litres of water through out the day and then at 5pm I had homemade chicken curry for dinner. And just had a cup of tea here now 8pm and that will be it until 12-1pm tomorrow..

That's not enough food for 24 hours, especially if you are training. Doing that for a few days, it's no surprise you fall off the edge with a binge.

Plan you food a bit better. Find out when you burn in a day. And plan out a window that hits about 500 cals less than that amount.

Personally, I'd be eating at least 2 big meals during that time.

OmegaGene wrote: »

3 meals with 2 snacks and you should never feel hungry, try and eat the last meal around 6 or 7 pm and get 8 hours or proper sleep

It's possible ton lose weight slowly without feeling hungry.
But realistically, if you losing 1/2 a kilo a week, you are going to be hungry some of the time - and that's ok.

Blanchguy

What about the 5:2 instead of intermittent fasting - means you only need willpower two days a week.

Mellor

Blanchguy wrote: »

What about the 5:2 instead of intermittent fasting - means you only need willpower two days a week.

You still need will power 7 days a week with 5:2. Two days of fasting might give you more flexibility but it doesn't allow you to eat what ever you feel like.

Personally I think you need less willpower to cut your window by around 4 hours, compared to not eating for almost 60 hours.

Starlord_01

ConnKib30 wrote: »

skipping breakfast. like you I can easily miss breakfast but as the evening progresses I can get very hungry and just go to the press to eat something small and end up eating everything. I suppose when I do eat during the day I may not be eating enough either during the 8 hour period that I am allowed to eat on the intermittinting fasting diet window. like today for i.e I had no breakfast then at 1pm I had a turkey sandwich. 3 litres of water through out the day and then at 5pm I had homemade chicken curry for dinner. And just had a cup of tea here now 8pm and that will be it until 12-1pm tomorrow which I suppose when I look at it now myself that is not enough food intake for the day..

Have you tracked your daily calories versus and worked out your maintenance calories?

Seems like you need a bit more structure, so would recommended to begin weighing out and tracking your food. You can then do some meal prep so your diet is sustainable.

ILoveYourVibes

They are both fads.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They are both fads.

I'm not sure you think how they qualify as a fad.

spodoinkle

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

They are both fads.

IF has been about for years, hardly a fad

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'm not sure you think how they qualify as a fad.

It's quite simple. The fact that they are trending in the media is not based on endorsement from dieticians and the mainstream medical community or evidence based science that is peer reviewed.

People follow them because they are trendy. They are popular. Sometimes celeb endorsed or media endorsed.

The only reason people lose weight is because they end up being hypocaloric.

And low carb diets often make the body eat it's own tissue inc muscle.

The optimum diet is just a plain old boring healthy diet that your GP or any dietician would tell you to follow.

Your body can't store protein and it can't take up more than it needs at the exact moment so ideally little and often is best for protein. (based on grm per lb of body weight and your activity etc)
Then long burn carbs partic early in the day...but no harm to have them in the evening partic if you plan to workout the next day on an empty stomach.

Low carb diets make your body eat muscle.

Intermittent fasting defeats the purpose of having protein at all tbh ...as your body can't store it.

The only reason people lose weight is because they are hypcaloric. But they are not sustainable. And then people gain it back.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It's quite simple. The fact that they are trending in the media is not based on endorsement from dieticians and the mainstream medical community or evidence based science that is peer reviewed.

People follow them because they are trendy. They are popular. Sometimes celeb endorsed or media endorsed.

The only reason people lose weight is because they end up being hypocaloric.

And low carb diets often make the body eat it's own tissue inc muscle.

The optimum diet is just a plain old boring healthy diet that your GP or any dietician would tell you to follow.

None of that makes either a fad.

Of course the main reason for weight loss is a caloric deficit but there are different ways of achieving it. Adherence is important which is why people try different routes....IF, low carb etc. For some, the "plain old boring healthy diet" is what they couldn't sustain. Maybe IF isn't for them. But people go down different routes to find something that helps them reduce caloric intake by default. IF might just be stopping them consuming that extra 'snack' at night and reducing intake by 500-1000 calories because of that one change.

IF is not a fad nor a trend. It's been around for a long time. Threads on it here going back 9+ years and plenty of people losing weight with it.

Any studies I've seen that show muscle metabolism were for stupidly low carb intakes. And even aside from that, it's not a direct correlation. It's one possible factor as opposed to being a primary factor.

Unless someone is dealing in extremes, there's no consensus that a "plain old boring healthy diet", whatever that is exactly, is more optimal.

And besides, "a plain old boring healthy diet" and IF are not mutually exclusive.

IF doesnt defeat the purpose of having protein at all. No one is eating around the clock.

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

IF doesnt defeat the purpose of having protein at all. No one is eating around the clock.

Bodybuilders are. People who want to gain muscle ..you better believe they are.

There is ZERO reason buy into these diets. Everyone who follows them is back to square one in like 10 yrs.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Bodybuilders are. People who want to gain muscle ..you better believe they are.

There is ZERO reason buy into these diets. Everyone who follows them is back to square one in like 10 yrs.

We're talking general population here. It's a bit like pointing to Michael Phelps diet to support that some people eat 120000 calories per day.

eoinob50

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It's quite simple. The fact that they are trending in the media is not based on endorsement from dieticians and the mainstream medical community or evidence based science that is peer reviewed. IF is nothing new and hardly treading, it is a very effective way to manage calories on a controlled diet

People follow them because they are trendy. They are popular. Sometimes celeb endorsed or media endorsed.

The only reason people lose weight is because they end up being hypocaloric.

And low carb diets often make the body eat it's own tissue inc muscle. No it doesn't, any proof on this?

The optimum diet is just a plain old boring healthy diet that your GP or any dietician would tell you to follow. A typical GP knows as much about a proper diet as you

Your body can't store protein and it can't take up more than it needs at the exact moment so ideally little and often is best for protein. (based on grm per lb of body weight and your activity etc)
Then long burn carbs partic early in the day...but no harm to have them in the evening partic if you plan to workout the next day on an empty stomach.

Low carb diets make your body eat muscle. again no it doesn't. Body only breaks down muscle tissue once all energy stores are used which include - carbs AND fats, only then will it break down muscle

Intermittent fasting defeats the purpose of having protein at all tbh ...as your body can't store it. Again no, correct the body doesn't store protein beyond what is needed at the time but it doesn't magically digest the minute yiu eat it, and your body doesn't go catabolic in mere hours

The only reason people lose weight is because they are hypcaloric. But they are not sustainable. And then people gain it back.

If people are using extreme low cals whether it it a 'normal diet', IF, PSMF etc, then the problem is not the diet but the person for not implementing it correctly. All diets to be effective need to be calorie controlled, not a simple case of eat as less as possible or simply all healthy food.

eoinob50

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Bodybuilders are. People who want to gain muscle ..you better believe they are.

There is ZERO reason buy into these diets. Everyone who follows them is back to square one in like 10 yrs.

I've dieted for a BB comp and yes BBers do eat the round of the clock but they still use these methods also, unless your jacked up 300lbs of muscle

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

We're talking general population here. It's a bit like pointing to Michael Phelps diet to support that some people eat 120000 calories per day.

Yes I know.

The general population don't eat 120000 calories a day. Please stop selling snake oil to people.

These diets are not healthy. And they certainly don't teach people HOW to eat.

People can't get all the macro and micro nutrients they need from them.

They have adverse affects on hormones.


Your liver produces an excess level of ketones. (ketosis) Excess levels of ketones have been shown to be dangerous for people suffering from pancreatitis. Its also been linked to compromised bone health and kidney stones. That is just the start.



Generally i would call ' a sensible diet' what the majority of dieticians recommend.

ILoveYourVibes

eoinob50 wrote: »

but they still use these methods also,

Not the ones i know.

And they WIN.

And she is a she...not jacked up to 300lbs of muscle.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Yes I know.

The general population don't eat 120000 calories a day. Please stop selling snake oil to people.

Bizarre comment. I'm not selling snake oil to anyone.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

These diets are not healthy. And they certainly don't teach people HOW to eat.

People can't get all the macro and micro nutrients they need from them.

They have adverse effects on hormones

What about IF is not healthy? And how does it not teach people how to eat? How do you not get all the macro and micro nutrient? How does it adversely affect hormones

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Generally i would call ' a sensible diet' what the majority of dieticians recommend.

Which is?


As it happens, my diet is a plain old healthy one. I just find it odd that you're attributing all these adverse effects, mostly which occur in extremes, and attributed them to all non 'plain old boring healthy diets'

eoinob50

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Not the ones i know.

And they WIN.

And she is a she...not jacked up to 300lbs of muscle.

Not sure what being a women has to do with it apart from they should eat a higher fat diet, or you going to argue that too.

I'll agree for competitive bb, and your looking for the icing on the cake.. the yeah stick to your 5/6 meals evenly spread out.

For average person with some muscle or not, I'll agree to disagree

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

What about IF is not healthy?

I don't know what this means.

As i said.

Your liver produces an excess level of ketones. (ketosis) Excess levels of ketones have been shown to be dangerous for people suffering from pancreatitis. Its also been linked to compromised bone health and kidney stones. That is just the start.

Which is?

Well interesting since you mentioned the general population before.

If i were training someone as part of the PARQ form i would ask them about their daily habits their health issues. Family history etc.

From their bmi and activity level I would be able to find out what calorie balance they need. I would be able to make recommendations of macros.

For example you would never recommend a low carb diet to someone with low blood pressure. If on a parq form they answer YES to that question I would know.

Intermittent fasting also reduces systolic bp.

That might be desirable in someone with high bp not someone with low bp already. That could be dangerous partic if they are going to workout.

BloodBath

Your food cravings are most likely your body craving some nutrition that you aren't getting. This is often why people with weight problems feel hungry a lot despite eating a lot.

These fad diets are not providing your body with what it needs. Fasting and high protein are not the answer.

A good balanced diet providing as much vitamins and minerals as possible along with a boost from supplements is the way to go.

ILoveYourVibes

BloodBath wrote: »

Your food cravings are most likely your body craving some nutrition that you aren't getting. This is often why people with weight problems feel hungry a lot despite eating a lot.

These fad diets are not providing your body with what it needs. Fasting and high protein are not the answer.

A good balanced diet providing as much vitamins and minerals as possible along with a boost from supplements is the way to go.

I agree with all of this. 100%

But supplements don't always do what they promise.The Australian Institute for sport has a good ABCD rating system for supplements. And cravings are sometimes poor nutrition but also addiction or a bad habit.

I understand though for some people they get them from point A to point B. But lifestyle wise they are not the healthiest.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I don't know what this means.

It means what about IF (Intermittent Fasting) is not healthy?

Most people who implement it are usually just reducing their eating window to ca. 8 hours. (Though time restricted eating is more accurate). It's not an overhaul of their actual diet. So how is it unhealthy? How does it mean it's not providing all the micro and macronutrients? How does it affect hormones?

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Well interesting since you mentioned the general population before.

If i were training someone as part of the PARQ form i would ask them about their daily habits their health issues. Family history etc.

From their bmi and activity level I would be able to find out what calorie balance they need. I would be able to make recommendations of macros.

Doesn't really answer the question but that doesn't matter

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

For example you would never recommend a low carb diet to someone with low blood pressure. If on a parq form they answer YES to that question I would know.

Again, we're talking about general population without underlying health conditions. Obviously those would have an impact on diet in particular circumstances.

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Again, we're talking about general population without underlying health conditions. Obviously those would have an impact on diet in particular circumstances.

Ask yourself this question. What age do most people start gaining weight?

I have seen this mistake a lot. Fitness people assume everyone is in their 20s.

Nope ..most people who come to PTs do so when these health issues have already arisen.

Same with most people who start diets. People start these diets because they have these health issues.

And how do you know who is the general population?

These diets are not healthy for the general population anyway.

Doesn't really answer the question but that doesn't matter

Ok 2000 cals for women 2500 for men ...30 % fat 10% protein ...60% carbs. Honestly though you have to know the persons age bmi activity level ...ask them general health questions and family history. Imagine suggesting keto to someone overweight at 45 with a family history of myocardial infraction?

You don't know who is general population. This is most people over 40 today.

In the US 44% of peopl over 50 have metabolic syndrome. (although low carb diets seem to help people with MBS ironically)

If you think the general population is 20 yrs olds with no health issues ..that is a small general population.

It means what about IF (Intermittent Fasting) is not healthy?

oh thank god ..i thought i had lost the ability to speak english for a moment!

Intermittent fasting increases cortisol levels.

If people are having their scheduled food in the evening and are overweight this negatively affects triglycerides.

It can cause imbalances in potassium or sodium.

Intermittent Fasting also damages the immune system. Yes in otherwise healthy people.

Getting a variety of macro and micro nutrients is harder in a smaller space of time. And harder still in an unbalanced diet.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Ask yourself this question. What age do most people start gaining weight?

I have seen this mistake a lot. Fitness people assume everyone is in their 20s.

Nope ..most people who come to PTs do so when these health issues have already arisen.

Same with most people who start diets. People start these diets because they have these health issues.

And how do you know who is the general population?

These diets are not healthy for the general population anyway.



Ok 2000 cals for women 2500 for men ...30 % fat 10% protein ...60% carbs. Honestly though you have to know the persons age bmi activity level ...ask them general health questions and family history. Imagine suggesting keto to someone overweight at 45 with a family history of myocardial infraction?

You don't know who is general population. This is most people over 40 today.



oh thank god ..i thought i had lost the ability to speak english for a moment!

Intermittent fasting increases cortisol levels.

If people are having their scheduled food in the evening and are overweight this negatively affects triglycerides.

It can cause imbalances in potassium or sodium.

Intermittent Fasting also damages the immune system. Yes in otherwise healthy people.

Getting a variety of macro and micro nutrients is harder in a smaller space of time. And harder still in an unbalanced diet.

Take the wheels off the goalposts. Now you're changing who the general population is?

I.F. doesn't mean people are necessarily eating in the evening. It doesn't mean they don't have a balanced healthy diet. It doesn't mean they can't get enough nutrients. In many instances it probably just means someone doesn't have breakfast. That doesn't mean that between midday and 8pm, for example, they can't have a plain old boring healthy diet.

And 10% protein is ~ 60g ? For someone whereby 2500 is for maintenance or even deficit ?

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Take the wheels off the goalposts. Now you're changing who the general population is?
I.F. doesn't mean people are necessarily eating in the evening. It doesn't mean they don't have a balanced healthy diet. It doesn't mean they can't get enough nutrients. In many instances it probably just means someone doesn't have breakfast. That doesn't mean that between midday and 8pm, for example, they can't have a plain old boring healthy diet.

Are you qualified to talk about this stuff?

And 10% protein is ~ 60g ? For someone whereby 2500 is for maintenance or even deficit ?

Yes ..general diet advice is not really adequate ..you need to talk to the individual.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Are you qualified to talk about this stuff?


Yes ..general diet advice is not really adequate ..you need to talk to the individual.

Am I qualified to say that you can get a balanced healthy diet in an 8 hour window and that 10% protein would be too low for a lot of average people?

Do you need a qualification for that?

And a PT qualification isnt a qualification in nutrition.

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Am I qualified to say that you can get a balanced healthy diet in an 8 hour window and that 10% protein would be too low for a lot of average people?

Do you need a qualification for that?

And a PT qualification isnt a qualification in nutrition.

I had a nutrition module. Both terms!

Anyway Intermittant fasting or high protein doesn't really tell us much about what you are eating. You could eat crap within a 8 hr window. Or eat really healthy. Or you could eat proteins bars on a low carb diet and think fruit is the devil.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I had a nutrition module. Both terms!

It's not a qualification.

Not shìtting on your qualifications either but a couple of modules don't count as a qualification otherwise dieticians wouldn't bother going to college.

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's not a qualification.

Not shìtting on your qualifications either .

It's ok i don't mind you ****ting on it!

I feel like now is when I start learning tbh. They always say you don't learn in a classroom but from doing etc.

But i do feel strongly about the industry promoting short fixes and obesity still rising! Its a bug bear.

Although i've never had to lose weight.

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It's ok i don't mind you ****ting on it!

I feel like now is when I start learning tbh.

But i do feel strongly about the industry promoting short fixes and obesity still rising! Its a bug bear.

We possibly.agree on more than we disagree on.

But not every 'diet' is necessarily unhealthy and /or unbalanced. And IF certainly isn't.

Regardless of what it is, it needs to be sustainable and people find adherence on different ways.

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

We possibly.agree on more than we disagree on.

But not every 'diet' is necessarily unhealthy and /or unbalanced. And IF certainly isn't.

Regardless of what it is, it needs to be sustainable and people find adherence on different ways.

I agree.



Look at the fry thread in AH.....some people have the fry from hell ( but delish)..some people have a healthy one!

Someone could eat healthy within 8 hrs ..and someone could eat miccy ds!

collywobble7

spodoinkle wrote:

IF has been about for years, hardly a fad

Anything that involves fasting is not sustainable long term. Hence it's a fad. As others have suggested choose healthy foods and portion sizes and aim to lose weight gradually.

Alf Veedersane

collywobble7 wrote: »

Anything that involves fasting is not sustainable long term. Hence it's a fad.

Not by the definition of fad.

Take someone who sleeps 11pm until 7am. 8 hour fast. Had dinner at 6pm. Add 5 hours to 'fast'. That's 13 hours of 'fasting' while eating 'normally'. Yet someone following a time-restricted fast with a 16 hour fast is suddenly swinging off into an unsustainable diet?

ILoveYourVibes

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Not by the definition of fad.

Take someone who sleeps 11pm until 7am. 8 hour fast. Had dinner at 6pm. Add 5 hours to 'fast'. That's 13 hours of 'fasting' while eating 'normally'. Yet someone following a time-restricted fast with a 16 hour fast is suddenly swinging off into an unsustainable diet?

Yes. And the whole world does that. Are we thin yet? Or do we have an obesity crisis?

Alf Veedersane

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Yes. And the whole world does that. Are we thin yet? Or do we have an obesity crisis?

It doesn't trump eating proper food. Of course it doesn't and no has ever claimed it does.

Reducing the window often just means people don't graze at night.

It also doesn't suit everyone. It's just a tool to control calories.

There is more than one way to skin a cat sustainably, which is all my point is.

Mellor

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It's quite simple. The fact that they are trending in the media is not based on endorsement from dieticians and the mainstream medical community or evidence based science that is peer reviewed.

Neither is trending atm tbh.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2018-04-16%202020-05-16&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F04ycpbq,keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F03cg86

As for peer reviewed studies, there's plenty that show that either work.

The only reason people lose weight is because they end up being hypocaloric.

And low carb diets often make the body eat it's own tissue inc muscle.

The goal of a weight loss diet is to be catabolic and consume your own fat tissue.

The optimum diet is just a plain old boring healthy diet that your GP or any dietician would tell you to follow.

You mean based on decades old science since disproven. Avoid sat fat, lol.

Your body can't store protein and it can't take up more than it needs at the exact moment so ideally little and often is best for protein. (based on grm per lb of body weight and your activity etc)

Wrong on both counts tbh.

Ingested protein can be stored indirectly, as they can be converted to other macros.
It can also be oxidised for energy. So excess over your needs at an exact. moment is used. If it couldn't be used, you could eat as much as you like with no impact, which isn't the case obviously.

Low carb diets make your body eat muscle.

No they don't. Why would it?
Muscle contains no carbs, what do you think the body is achieving by consuming muscle?

Low protein diets are a different story. The body consumes muscle is its proteins needs aren't met. Probably what you are thinking of.

The only reason people lose weight is because they are hypcaloric. But they are not sustainable. And then people gain it back.

Yes, a hypo-calorific diet if the only way to lose weight. That goes for all diets.
Are you claiming that all weight loss is unsustainable, that's really not true.

ILoveYourVibes

Mellor wrote: »

Neither is trending atm tbh.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2018-04-16%202020-05-16&geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F04ycpbq,keto%20diet,%2Fm%2F03cg86

As for peer reviewed studies, there's plenty that show that either work.



The goal of a weight loss diet is to be catabolic and consume your own fat tissue.


You mean based on decades old science since disproven. Avoid sat fat, lol.



Wrong on both counts tbh.

Ingested protein can be stored indirectly, as they can be converted to other macros.
It can also be oxidised for energy. So excess over your needs at an exact. moment is used. If it couldn't be used, you could eat as much as you like with no impact, which isn't the case obviously.


No they don't. Why would it?
Muscle contains no carbs, what do you think the body is achieving by consuming muscle?

Low protein diets are a different story. The body consumes muscle is its proteins needs aren't met. Probably what you are thinking of.


.

Nothing of what you have said makes sense.

The body cannot efficiently convert protein into glucose. It's usually just stored as fat when consumed in excess.

You HOPE this fat is going to be used up in a calorie deficit ....but the body liked to use fat last and muscle first or other tissues once glycogen reserves are used up.

And if your body COULD be a protein to carb converting machine ..your body is STILL Not storing protein as i said.

Yes, a hypo-calorific diet if the only way to lose weight. That goes for all diets.
Are you claiming that all weight loss is unsustainable, that's really not true

Clearly i am not claiming that ...

The goal of healthy weightloss is not to be indiscriminately catabolic.

Your body only needs a small percent of sat fat its best to get fat from mono or poly unsaturated sources.

Fat contains no carbs either funnily.

Mellor

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Nothing of what you have said makes sense.

Not able to understand it, isn’t the same as it making sense.

The body cannot efficiently convert protein into glucose. It's usually just stored as fat when consumed in excess.

Nobody claimed it does so efficiently. In fact I referenced the fact it biases other processes.
You just said it’s stored as fat, but before you say it can’t be stored. Which is it?

Still incorrect thought, the body biases efficiency. In this case, it will use the protein and store dietary fat over converting protein to fat.

You HOPE this fat is going to be used up in a calorie deficit ....but the body liked to use fat last and muscle first or other tissues once glycogen reserves are used up.

Also incorrect.
If the body used muscle first and fat last, then all calorie deficits would result in muscle loss and make fat loss extremely rare.

And if your body COULD be a protein to carb converting machine ..your body is STILL Not storing protein as i said.

You said it can’t be stored.
I said it can, but it rare happens. Small but important difference.
If rarely happens because the protein gets used, which makes your entire point about wasted protein baseless.

ILoveYourVibes

Mellor wrote: »

Not able to understand it, isn’t the same as it making sense.


Nobody claimed it does so efficiently. In fact I referenced the fact it biases other processes.
You just said it’s stored as fat, but before you say it can’t be stored. Which is it?

Still incorrect thought, the body biases efficiency. In this case, it will use the protein and store dietary fat over converting protein to fat.


Also incorrect.
If the body used muscle first and fat last, then all calorie deficits would result in muscle loss abs make fat loss extremely rare.


You said it can’t be stored.
I said it can, but it rare happens. Small but important difference.
If rarely happens because the protein gets used, which makes your entire point about wasted protein baseless.

No ...your body stores fat ..not protein ...

ALL CALORIE DEFICITS DO RESULT IN MUSCLE LOSS....:rolleyes:

Its rare for people to lose fat without losing some if not equal parts muscle.

In even the most protein rich diet while lifting it is inevitable that you will lose some muscle.

Your body turns to muscle to break down amino acids. Which is will use instead for fuel. But it wouldn't have to if you have adequate carbs.

Your body wants to use glycogen first.

Right i guess we will have to inform peeps with diabetes to watch the protein for that glucose spike an hr after right?

Mellor

The goal of healthy weightloss is not to be indiscriminately catabolic.

Neither keto or IF produces indiscriminate catabolism. That claim was disproven.

Catabolism is a product of other factors.

Your body only needs a small percent of sat fat its best to get fat from mono or poly unsaturated sources.[/quotes]
The body’s requirements isn’t the same a limit you should have.

The body requires protein and fat. But not carbs.
By the above logic we should avoid carbs as they’re not required.

Fat contains no carbs either funnily.

Of course not. But I didn’t make any claims about low-carb diets triggering any specific kind of catabolism. That was you.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No ...your body stores fat ..not protein ...[/protein]Exactly. Protein is used for energy and fat gets store as this is the most efficient pathway. This is exactly what I said above.
And it proves your original claim to be false. Eating more than your instantaneous protein requirements isn’t “not used”. It’s simply used later.

ALL CALORIE DEFICITS DO RESULT IN MUSCLE LOSS....:rolleyes:

Its rare for people to lose fat without losing some if not equal parts muscle.

In even the most protein rich diet while lifting it is inevitable that you will lose some muscle.

I never claim led that muscle loss didn’t occur when dieting.

You said that low carb is bad because cause muscle loss. But your justification is that it happens with all diets. Which makes your criticism pointless.

Your body turns to muscle to break down amino acids. Which is will use instead for fuel. But it wouldn't have to if you have adequate carbs.

Your body wants to use glycogen first.

Again, incorrect.

The body doesn’t break down muscle for energy, it uses amino acids for new cells, hair, skin, etc. Because it can’t use fat or carbs. Which is why adequate protein and weight training minimise muscle loss.

Energy needs are suppler by glyocogen stores and body fat.
Nothing your said suggests eating carbs improve the rate of fat loss.

Right i guess we will have to inform peeps with diabetes to watch the protein for that glucose spike an hr after right?

I dont see the relevance.

ILoveYourVibes

MELLOR
Energy needs are suppler by glyocogen stores abs body fat.
Nothing your said suggests eating carbs improve the rate of fat loss.

ok

ILoveYourVibes

As for protein, our bodies don't maintain official reserves for use as fuel. Rather, protein is used to build, maintain, and repair body tissues, as well as to synthesize important enzymes and hormones. Under ordinary circumstances, protein meets only 5 percent of the body's energy needs. In some situations, however, such as when we eat too few calories daily or not enough carbohydrate, as well as during latter stages of endurance exercise, when glycogen reserves are depleted, skeletal muscle is broken down and used as fuel. This sacrifice is necessary to access certain amino acids (the building blocks of protein) that can be converted into glucose. Remember, your brain also needs a constant, steady supply of glucose to function optimally.

https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/the-bodys-fuel-sources

Its why endurance athletes need carbs so much.

Mellor

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Where does your body get glycogen from Mellor?

So can't actually counter what I said.

Glycogen and fat stores.
Existing glycogen stores are depleted when dieting, which increases fat oxidation. If you are hypocalorific, regardless of macro split, you aren't going to replenish glycogen, and all your dietary energy is used per over 24 hours.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

https://us.humankinetics.com/blogs/excerpt/the-bodys-fuel-sources

Its why endurance athletes need carbs so much.

The body has a limited glycogen store and a limited rate of fat oxidation. During an endurance event (beyond marathon distances) the energy needs surpass those limits, even with mid-event fueling. So the energy has to come from somewhere, ie muscle catabolism.*

We are talking about normal people dieting, not endurance athletes during endurance events. Kinda baffling that you thought that was relevant.
This is all really basic stuff btw. I think you need to lose the "qualified" attitude until you've studied a bit more.


*There are a contingent of endurance events who compete in a ketogenic state. As this provides a additional energy pathway (ketones), sacrificing glycogen. But that's a complex issue beyond the scope of this thread.

ILoveYourVibes

Mellor wrote: »

So can't actually counter what I said.

Glycogen and fat stores.
Existing glycogen stores are depleted when dieting, which increases fat oxidation. If you are hypocalorific, regardless of macro split, you aren't going to replenish glycogen, and all your dietary energy is used per over 24 hours.



The body has a limited glycogen store and a limited rate of fat oxidation. During an endurance event (beyond marathon distances) the energy needs surpass those limits, even with mid-event fueling. So the energy has to come from somewhere, ie muscle catabolism.*

We are talking about normal people dieting, not endurance athletes during endurance events. Kinda baffling that you thought that was relevant.
This is all really basic stuff btw. I think you need to lose the "qualified" attitude until you've studied a bit more.


*There are a contingent of endurance events who compete in a ketogenic state. As this provides a additional energy pathway (ketones), sacrificing glycogen. But that's a complex issue beyond the scope of this thread.

Mellor its clear you have no idea what you are talking about so honestly its not worth arguing with you. Goodbye.

I have an ACTUAL professional and internationally recognized qualification ....i didn't read some article online. Its not an attitude. You have the attitude. You have read a lot of articles or books with no background in physiology etc.

Clearly the whole idea of 'ketosis' etc is to use this same energy pathway. My point is its not a good idea.

Similarly you seemed to think the body could store protein as fuel. It can't ..it has to be stored as fat ...the same fat you are trying to lose on your ass ...then burned. If the body could store protein then you wouldn't need to consume it pre or post workout. You could have a huge amount in the morning and call it a day.

You seem very confused.

Mellor

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I have an ACTUAL professional and internationally recognized qualification ....i didn't read some article online. Its not an attitude. You have the attitude. You have read a lot of articles or books with no background in physiology etc.

A PT course isn't a professional qualification in nutrition or physiology.
Like Alf, I'm not ****ting on your career path, but you are making erroneous claims.

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Clearly the whole idea of 'ketosis' etc is to use this same energy pathway. My point is its not a good idea.

Nothing you've refers to that pathway. And that's not the point of keto for weight loss.
It's simply about being hypocalorific.

Similarly you seemed to think the body could store protein as fuel. It can't ..it has to be stored as fat ...the same fat you are trying to lose on your ass ...then burned. .

You said it was not possible, I pointed out that it is actually possible, which you've agree is correct. I never said anything about storing protein being a goal.
Why you somebody trying to lsoe weight be trying to store energy. That makes no sense.

If the body could store protein then you wouldn't need to consume it pre or post workout.

Tell me more about this protein window. lololol

ILoveYourVibes

Mellor wrote: »

A PT course isn't a professional qualification in nutrition or physiology.
l

?? My specialization was exercise physiology and human anatomy. So you are wrong. I had a secondary module in nutrition.

Of course a PT qualification should be a professional qualification in exercise physiology unless you have just done some mickey mouse 6 week or 3 month course.

Mellor

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

?? My specialization was exercise physiology and human anatomy. So you are wrong. I had a secondary module in nutrition.

Of course a PT qualification should be a professional qualification in exercise physiology unless you have just done some mickey mouse 6 week or 3 month course.

Physiology is a medical science field. "Exercise physiology" isn't the same thing as physiology qualification.
Similarly, the course may have included an anatomy module, but a PT cert isn't a professional anatomy qualification either. They are subjects covered in a short course, but a professional qualification (ie a degree) in that specific subject would take years on its own.

I've sure your PT course was a very good PT course. But it does not make one a expert in nutrition, biology, anatomy etc.