Diet Vs Safe cycling

QueensGael · 22-01-2015 03:28PM

rtmie wrote: »

Anyone used these or have an opinion?

Slightly off topic, but yes, I go to Andy's class on Thursdays, I find his classes are good for training this time of year.

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 04:09PM

ford2600 wrote: »

There will be significant fluid loss due to restricting carbohydrate.

OP seems to miss that point

I do Ford, honestly and I know the challenge is going to be sustainable weight loss. If the initial rapid weight loss encourages me to adopt a healthier diet and lifestyle including better/more exercise the result will be a positive one even if I end up taking a few steps back in the short term in order to take more steps forward in the long term.

BTW, I'm actually drinking more fluid (water) over the last 3 weeks than ever but I know that may not be the same as the "fluid loss" you are referring to.

What I can tell you though is that I'm not

pooing

anywhere near as often as I was. I used to be a morning and evening man regular but now I'm a once every three days man

Maybe I am full of $hit

ford2600 · 22-01-2015 04:17PM

BenEadir wrote: »

I do Ford, honestly and I know the challenge is going to be sustainable weight loss. If the initial rapid weight loss encourages me to adopt a healthier diet and lifestyle including better/more exercise the result will be a positive one even if I end up taking a few steps back in the short term in order to take more steps forward in the long term.

BTW, I'm actually drinking more fluid (water) over the last 3 weeks than ever but I know that may not be the same as the "fluid loss" you are referring to.

What I can tell you though is that I'm not
pooing
anywhere near as often as I was. I used to be a morning and evening man regular but now I'm a once every three days man

Maybe I am full of $hit

Your own business what you eat!!

Hard to see how any diet can justifiably reduce/restrict veg at any stage. Get your veg way up, fibre is your friend. Veg is high fibre, high on nutrients but low on energy. I find it good to prevent overeating.

What you describe is one of the more common complaints with Atkins type diet.

This guy is a interesting writer on all things food related.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ie/search/label/Food%20reward

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 04:29PM

Thanks Ford, I'll have a read later. I'm beginning to get a graw for knowledge in relation to this stuff - fascinating what I (we) just take for granted all the time.

ford2600 wrote: »

Hard to see how any diet can justifiably reduce/restrict veg at any stage.

I don't recall veg being restricted in any way on this diet, in fact veg are actively promoted as much as possible. I hope I didn't say something misleading.

desertcircus · 22-01-2015 04:41PM

BenEadir wrote: »

There you go - http://bit.ly/1wpUvrb

If the info on the Livestrong website or carbsanity blogspot isn't helpful perhaps the question should be:-

"What's the scientific basis for combining carbs and fats?

A Let Me Google That For You link? You could do with reading your sources: the Livestrong section on it has no actual evidence bar the word of a practitioner of pretend medicine, while the actual expert they interview - a dietician - says it has no basis and could actually be harmful.

ford2600 · 22-01-2015 04:55PM

BenEadir wrote: »

Thanks Ford, I'll have a read later. I'm beginning to get a graw for knowledge in relation to this stuff - fascinating what I (we) just take for granted all the time.

I don't recall veg being restricted in any way on this diet, in fact veg are actively promoted as much as possible. I hope I didn't say something misleading.

Your bacon and eggs with a little salad was where I got the idea. For adequate fibre(in absence of grains) veg should be dominating the plate on a volume basis.

Jawgap · 22-01-2015 04:57PM

BenEadir wrote: »

....

BTW, I'm actually drinking more fluid (water) over the last 3 weeks than ever but I know that may not be the same as the "fluid loss" you are referring to.

....

It's not just absolute loss of fluid - it's the disruption it causes to the electrolytes in your body.........and everything that goes with that.

Maybe it's ok in the short-term - everyone has different motivations and perhaps as a jump start to getting into a healthier lifestyle it might work in the short term.

Jawgap · 22-01-2015 05:01PM

BTW -how come it lists 'bacon' as 'unprocessed'?

Do they mean pork?

If you're losing fluid and messing around with your electrolyte balance, do you really want the nitrates / nitrites etc that's used to cure the meat?

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 05:20PM

desertcircus wrote: »

A Let Me Google That For You link? You could do with reading your sources: the Livestrong section on it has no actual evidence bar the word of a practitioner of pretend medicine, while the actual expert they interview - a dietician - says it has no basis and could actually be harmful.

Relax the kacks there desertcircus, a week ago I didn't appreciate not consuming carbs pre spin would have such a negative effect. Asking me for scientific proof is a bit OTT don't you think? Hense the LMGTFY as I assume your question was rhetoric.

Maybe separating carbs and fats will prove to be a waste of time or maybe it's just a glorified placebo effect i.e. those doing it would have lost weight anyway as the combined carbs and fats they are eating under the plan are healthier than their previous diet. Time will tell and if separating carbs and fat helps me maintain my weight loss and helps shift another 5-6kg without any adverse effect on me the end result will be a success even if getting there was less than scientifically approved.

BTW, you never answered my question to you. Where's the scientific proof that fats and carbs should be combined? The fact it is traditionally the case doesn't make it scientifically proven does it and vice versa ref separating them.

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 05:22PM

ford2600 wrote: »

Your bacon and eggs with a little salad was where I got the idea. For adequate fibre(in absence of grains) veg should be dominating the plate on a volume basis.

Veg dominates the plate for lunch and dinner. Hot pot tonight is 600g of stewing steak + loads of chopped carrots, onions, celery and leeks. No spuds though

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 05:25PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe it's ok in the short-term - everyone has different motivations and perhaps as a jump start to getting into a healthier lifestyle it might work in the short term.

That's exactly what it is, it is only supposed to be sustained for between 5 days and 3 weeks. I'm doing the 3 weeks and have 3.5 days to go. Apart from feeling $hit on the spin last Saturday I've been fine. I'm never hungry and over the last 2.5 weeks I've done 4-5 spin classes, 30 minutes on the eliptical trainer a few times and various weights and exercises.

I'm sleeping heavily which I guess could be a sign the body is working a bit harder than normal but apart form that I'm tip top.

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 05:28PM

Jawgap wrote: »

BTW -how come it lists 'bacon' as 'unprocessed'

Streaky bacon with no artificial sweetners etc is all that's permitted. Regular bacon or smoked bacon including smoked streaky bacon isn't permitted.

Aldi have streaky bacon with no Dextrose etc which is what I've been using. I've been cleaning out my local Aldi of all their unsmoked streaky bacon twice a week!!

doozerie · 22-01-2015 05:47PM

BenEadir wrote: »

BTW, this might help explain the way this diet works after the first "detox" (I know I know!!) phase:-

I know nothing about the Harcombe diet but any diet that seems to essentially deem a particular nutrient (carbs, in this case) as being somehow so detrimental that is should be *entirely* excluded from the diet for an extended period would make me very wary. Moderating intake of the various nutrients makes sense to me, excluding one comletely for a long period is, to me, very questionable and I'd want to have a sound scientific basis for it before I'd be willing to follow such an approach.

Separately, that "handy table" is odd to me too. The "fat meals" are predominantly protein rather than fat, and include carbs (e.g. the whole milk carton in front of me has 5.8g carbs (of which sugars are 4.6g) per 100ml, "yoghurt" is a vague term at best but many yoghurts have more natural sugars than you might expect) - those carb proportions are not large, but they are certainly not zero.

Similarly, various of the foods listed as "carb meals" have notable amounts of protein in them (e.g. one sample of "brown pasta" I have here has 12.7g protein per 100g, some "brown rice" I have here has 8.9g protein per 100g).

Basically trying to break those foods exclusively into "fat meals" and "carb meals" simply doesn't work. Again, I don't know this diet so perhaps it doesn't really attempt to segregate the foods so strictly but some of your earlier posts suggest to me that it does try to do exactly that.

And don't forget either that many vegetables have carbs in them - to take a relatively extreme example, depending on what source you check carrots have between 4g and 10g carbs per 100g. It's actually quite tricky to eat a "no carb" diet, but personally I wouldn't even try it.

As regards training with no carbs, I do this regularly. My weekend training rides I do with no food intake at all from the point I stop eating the previous day to the point where I get back home again after the ride. I also don't carb-load the previous day. I started these fasted rides a year ago, shortly after I switched from a high carb diet to a low carb diet. I fully expected I'd bonk, I'd always relied heavily on carbs for immediate fuel, but I didn't bonk. A year later and I'm able to do intensive 3hr rides fasted, and I've done a few 5hr rides of moderate effort fasted too, and at no point during those rides did I ever feel on the verge of bonking. Glycogen stores explain part of that (estimated to be capable of fuelling in the region of 2 or 3 hours of moderate effort by the average person), burning fat as fuel explains the rest of it. In short, if you adjust your diet carefully over time then you can adapt your system to fuel itself largely on fat, and carbs are not necessary immediately prior to, or during, lengthy rides of low to moderate intensity.

In short, eat whatever you like, but beware of dietary advice, whether it comes with a label of "Harcombe" or something else. Be aware of what you are eating, keeping track of the nutrients works well for me, you can then tweak your diet in an informed way to see what works well for you and what doesn't. And where a diet advises that you exclude a nutrient entirely, ask why and ask whether the same intended objectives could be achieved through a less drastic (and more sustainable) route. It's a lot of things/information to try to balance, it's certainly not easy, but even the effort to analyse and understand it will leave you better informed and hopefully healthier overall.

ford2600 · 22-01-2015 05:52PM

doozerie wrote: »

I know nothing about the Harcombe diet but any diet that seems to essentially deem a particular nutrient (carbs, in this case) as being somehow so detrimental that is should be *entirely* excluded from the diet for an extended period would make me very wary. Moderating intake of the various nutrients makes sense to me, excluding one comletely for a long period is, to me, very questionable and I'd want to have a sound scientific basis for it before I'd be willing to follow such an approach.

Separately, that "handy table" is odd to me too. The "fat meals" are predominantly protein rather than fat, and include carbs (e.g. the whole milk carton in front of me has 5.8g carbs (of which sugars are 4.6g) per 100ml, "yoghurt" is a vague term at best but many yoghurts have more natural sugars than you might expect) - those carb proportions are not large, but they are certainly not zero.

Similarly, various of the foods listed as "carb meals" have notable amounts of protein in them (e.g. one sample of "brown pasta" I have here has 12.7g protein per 100g, some "brown rice" I have here has 8.9g protein per 100g).

Basically trying to break those foods exclusively into "fat meals" and "carb meals" simply doesn't work. Again, I don't know this diet so perhaps it doesn't really attempt to segregate the foods so strictly but some of your earlier posts suggest to me that it does try to do exactly that.

And don't forget either that many vegetables have carbs in them - to take a relatively extreme example, depending on what source you check carrots have between 4g and 10g carbs per 100g. It's actually quite tricky to eat a "no carb" diet, but personally I wouldn't even try it.

As regards training with no carbs, I do this regularly. My weekend training rides I do with no food intake at all from the point I stop eating the previous day to the point where I get back home again after the ride. I also don't carb-load the previous day. I started these fasted rides a year ago, shortly after I switched from a high carb diet to a low carb diet. I fully expected I'd bonk, I'd always relied heavily on carbs for immediate fuel, but I didn't bonk. A year later and I'm able to do intensive 3hr rides fasted, and I've done a few 5hr rides of moderate effort fasted too, and at no point during those rides did I ever feel on the verge of bonking. Glycogen stores explain part of that (estimated to be capable of fuelling in the region of 2 or 3 hours of moderate effort by the average person), burning fat as fuel explains the rest of it. In short, if you adjust your diet carefully over time then you can adapt your system to fuel itself largely on fat, and carbs are not necessary immediately prior to, or during, lengthy rides of low to moderate intensity.

In short, eat whatever you like, but beware of dietary advice, whether it comes with a label of "Harcombe" or something else. Be aware of what you are eating, keeping track of the nutrients works well for me, you can then tweak your diet in an informed way to see what works well for you and what doesn't. And where a diet advises that you exclude a nutrient entirely, ask why and ask whether the same intended objectives could be achieved through a less drastic (and more sustainable) route. It's a lot of things/information to try to balance, it's certainly not easy, but even the effort to analyse and understand it will leave you better informed and hopefully healthier overall.

Your posts are never brief but always worth reading!

doozerie · 22-01-2015 06:01PM

ford2600 wrote: »

Your posts are never brief but always worth reading!

I have too many words in my diet, the excess just pours out into my posts. A "low word" diet is next on my list for 2015, I feel confident that the Internet will find a reputable one for me

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 06:06PM

OK, based on my reading of the diet literature (which is not that extensive) here are my answers as best I can give them

doozerie wrote: »

I know nothing about the Harcombe diet but any diet that seems to essentially deem a particular nutrient (carbs, in this case) as being somehow so detrimental that is should be *entirely* excluded from the diet for an extended period would make me very wary. Moderating intake of the various nutrients makes sense to me, excluding one comletely for a long period is, to me, very questionable

The diet does not exclude carbs for an extended period, the recommended period is between five days and three weeks.

doozerie wrote: »

Separately, that "handy table" is odd to me too. The "fat meals" are predominantly protein rather than fat, and include carbs (e.g. the whole milk carton in front of me has 5.8g carbs (of which sugars are 4.6g) per 100ml, "yoghurt" is a vague term at best but many yoghurts have more natural sugars than you might expect) - those carb proportions are not large, but they are certainly not zero.

See my point above, carbs are not totally excluded even in the initial "hit the reset button" period. After that the "handy table" is used as a guide but the products you refer to are defined as "very low fat" versions e.g. Natural Live unsweetend yoghurt e.g. http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=272361052

The separation of carbs and fats is not clinically 100%, the idea is to keep them as separate as practically possible hence the handy table etc.

I appreciate the advice ref your own fasting spins and how finding a happy medium is the long term way to go. Will I stick religiously with this Harcombe Diet forever? I very much doubt it. Will I try and eat better and exercise better as a result of losing 10kg-15kg on the Harcombe diet? Absolutely!!

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 06:08PM

doozerie wrote: »

I have too many words in my diet, the excess just pours out into my posts. A "low word" diet is next on my list for 2015, I feel confident that the Internet will find a reputable one for me

Try the Harcombe no adjective diet, works a treat :P

doozerie · 22-01-2015 06:26PM

BenEadir wrote: »

The diet does not exclude carbs for an extended period, the recommended period is between five days and three weeks.

To me, five days of no carbs is a long time, I couldn't even conceive of ingesting no carbs for three weeks. I would genuinely have concerns about the medical/health implications of that. Assuming it is truly a *no* carb period, that is, it could easily actually be a *low* carb period unless you carefully keep track of what you are eating throughout.

desertcircus · 22-01-2015 06:26PM

BenEadir wrote: »

Relax the kacks there desertcircus, a week ago I didn't appreciate not consuming carbs pre spin would have such a negative effect. Asking me for scientific proof is a bit OTT don't you think? Hense the LMGTFY as I assume your question was rhetoric.

Maybe separating carbs and fats will prove to be a waste of time or maybe it's just a glorified placebo effect i.e. those doing it would have lost weight anyway as the combined carbs and fats they are eating under the plan are healthier than their previous diet. Time will tell and if separating carbs and fat helps me maintain my weight loss and helps shift another 5-6kg without any adverse effect on me the end result will be a success even if getting there was less than scientifically approved.

BTW, you never answered my question to you. Where's the scientific proof that fats and carbs should be combined? The fact it is traditionally the case doesn't make it scientifically proven does it and vice versa ref separating them.

The reason I may be coming across as hostile to this diet is that as far as I can see, there's no scientific or evidential basis to it whatsoever. The demand that adherents to the diet avoid carbs in the initial phase and then stick to a restrictive set of rules indefinitely afterwards might as well be tailormade for producing rapid weight loss (through fluid loss rather than fat burning) and then triggering relapse and gaining of all the weight back as people inevitably find the "no carbs and fats together" rule impossible to stick to in daily life. If I was trying to specifically engineer a diet plan that kept people buying my books and struggling to keep weight off - particularly one that people instinctively assumed was a great diet because of the drastic initial loss - I'd be hard pressed to do better than what you've outlined. It's practically guaranteed to keep people yoyoing up and down and struggling to keep to the diet.

The other, more basic problem I have with it is that it's essentially trying to monetise good health by making it seem more complicated than it really is. Losing weight isn't a complex process - you eat less food, consume less sugar and exercise more - but the endless ranks of con artists, evangelists and outright changers trying to make money off it have convinced people that losing weight is beyond them unless they pay for the experts' advice. It's a thoroughly unpleasant business, riddled with meaningless buzzwords, contradictory claims and outright bull**** (detox, toxins, immune system boosters...) and deserves to die a swift and merciless death.

I'm confrontational about this diet because all the available evidence indicates you'll most likely put all the weight back on, and blame yourself rather than the pointless and potentially harmful restrictions of the diet. Even if you stick to it forever, you'll be facing a lifetime without another bacon sandwich, and what kind of life is that? It's completely unnecessary, complicates a simple process, almost guarantees relapse and has no evidential basis whatsoever.

Jawgap · 22-01-2015 08:44PM

BenEadir wrote: »

Streaky bacon with no artificial sweetners etc is all that's permitted. Regular bacon or smoked bacon including smoked streaky bacon isn't permitted.

Aldi have streaky bacon with no Dextrose etc which is what I've been using. I've been cleaning out my local Aldi of all their unsmoked streaky bacon twice a week!!

Bacon is bacon - it's brined or salted pork. Streaky bacon isn't a different recipe - it's a different cut, usually the belly of pig, which tends to be a bit fattier than back bacon.

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 10:28PM

desertcircus wrote: »

Even if you stick to it forever, you'll be facing a lifetime without another bacon sandwich, and what kind of life is that?

The diet recognises that from time to time you'll want to have a bit of a blow out e.g. over Xmas or whilst on holiday etc so there is no "never" for anything. If I really want a bacon sambo (thanks for putting that in my head!) I can have one but if I get too far away from the plan as I will probably do on holiday in France (can't go to France and not enjoy their lovely breads) then at the end of the blowout you go back to phase one for five days to hit the reset button and get back on the plan thereafter.

I have not eaten my last bacon sandwich!

BenEadir · 22-01-2015 10:29PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Bacon is bacon - it's brined or salted pork. Streaky bacon isn't a different recipe - it's a different cut, usually the belly of pig, which tends to be a bit fattier than back bacon.

No issue with any of that but Aldi streaky bacon fires not have Dextrose listed as an ingredient and all other cuts/styles do.

Jawgap · 22-01-2015 10:49PM

BenEadir wrote: »

No issue with any of that but Aldi streaky bacon fires not have Dextrose listed as an ingredient and all other cuts/styles do.

The amount of sugar added is fairly minimal - it's usually added as a 'syrup' or in granulated form to provided colour and/ or an element of flavour.

Your still getting the nitrates and nitrites - and I don't see how it can be called anything other than processed. Plus streaky bacon is the fattiest cut - and it's about 10 cals/g fat, mostly saturated and monounsaturated fats.

Don't get me wrong I love bacon, especially crispy - but from a scientific perspective I wouldn't take seriously any diet that allows you eat, by the sound of it, as much bacon as you want and even at that steers you away from the leanest cuts.

Also, tinned fish is not 'unprocessed' neither is salted fish which can have salt contents over 10%. Or put in another way, only about 60g of some of the foods suggested on the list could put you over the top for your recommended daily salt / sodium intake.

Jawgap · 22-01-2015 10:58PM

I'd also steer away from the olive oil. It's better than most cooking oils but something like rapeseed, grapeseed or walnut oils have better fats profile.

Ole Rodrigo · 22-01-2015 11:03PM

Bacon and nitrates - interesting

ford2600 · 22-01-2015 11:34PM

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd also steer away from the olive oil. It's better than most cooking oils but something like rapeseed, grapeseed or walnut oils have better fats profile.

Was are rapeseed, grapessed and walnut better than olive oil?

Nitrates etc I agree on but was are lean cuts better/healthier than fat cuts?

Jawgap · 23-01-2015 10:42AM

ford2600 wrote: »

Was are rapeseed, grapessed and walnut better than olive oil?

Nitrates etc I agree on but was are lean cuts better/healthier than fat cuts?

More polyunsaturated fats - the 'good' fats.

Generally, I was always led to believe that the consumption of animal fats should be avoided, but not completely eliminated from the diet.

Incidentally - this week's New Scientist leads with an article on meat - "Let them eat steak: How to eat meat the healthy way"

Basically it all comes back to the same mantra - everything in moderation.......even, occasionally, moderation!

harringtonp · 23-01-2015 11:13AM

BenEadir wrote: »

BTW, you never answered my question to you. Where's the scientific proof that fats and carbs should be combined? The fact it is traditionally the case doesn't make it scientifically proven does it and vice versa ref separating them.

I combine them for convenience though gut reaction would be separate is best and that is only again because of CAVEMAN. He didn't live very long as pointed out earlier but a lot of evolution went into adapting him best for his natural eating habits... you know a pile of meat together after a kill, a gorging of berries or fruit when in season

harringtonp · 23-01-2015 11:40AM

Food Sheets are great when trying to bring your weight because when you have to write something down you'll think twice about consuming it.

Attached is what I ate and drank last week, its not a diet, just me struggling between the forces of sugar addiction and a desire to be able to hang on to the coattails of those skinnyy juniors come March.

P+R = porridge and raisins, half milk and water
R+T, Ry +T = ryvita and tuna with some coleslaw/humus mixed in, one tin of tuna usually downed Mon-Fri
F+N is usually raisins and nuts
whey is 30g of protein (Gold Standard Whey)

Highlighted yellow are the things I left I caved in on a little

Jawgap · 23-01-2015 11:43AM

harringtonp wrote: »

I combine them for convenience though gut reaction would be separate is best and that is only again because of CAVEMAN. He didn't live very long as pointed out earlier but a lot of evolution went into adapting him best for his natural eating habits... you know a pile of meat together after a kill, a gorging of berries or fruit when in season

Seriously - the whole Paleo-diet thing is another faddy McFad diet from Doctor O'Fad who got a PhD (he's not a medical doctor) from Fadsville university!

It's another diet that rails against carbs (it also encourages people to exclude whole grains and legumes from their diet).

The problem with the 'caveman' diet is that (a) we're not cavemen/women - the stresses in our life our different, the environment is completely different (we live in far greater population densities for example) and we're genetically different and (b) malnutrition killed off a lot of cave people.

Finally a lot of these high protein / low carb diets are environmentally damaging - if you're in to that sort of thing.

Diet Vs Safe cycling

Comments