not about calories its about carbs...

[ZidaneValor]

easy I ate 6 jumbo eggs with 4 slices thick cut bacon and 4 sausages for breakfast (roughly 3 carbs). For the rest of the day I had turkey breast (0 carbs), chicken breasts-thighs-legs-wings (0 carbs), steaks (0 carbs), hamburger meat 80/20 (0 carbs), hot dogs (0 carbs), Italian sausages (0 carbs), salmon, tuna (fresh and canned), sashimi, all have zero carbs. Whey protein (post workout-roughly 6 grams of carbs for 2 servings ON Gold), I snacked on beef jerky (1 gram per serving), pork rinds (0 carbs) [seriously?], and cheese (provolone has 0 carbs). I logged down everything I ate, the time, nutritional info from the package and weighed the portions.

And people wonder why I hate keto. If keto works for you, then by all means do it. But I will never understand a nutrition plan that lets you have hot dogs and pork rinds and not apples or brown rice.

[jonnyboy92110]

Guys, for me, keto works. I was always big and strong, but never had that lean look. Hell, I still don't have that lean look 100%. But over the past month of doing keto, I have seen amazing results. I tried it once before, but didn't spend enough time in the induction phase, and didn't really keep my bad carbs in check on carb-up days. I'm now carbing up every 10 to 14 days. Nothing bad for me. Some rice. Some fruit. Then back on the wagon. And the results have been phenomenal. For the first time in my life, I can honestly say that I'm about 2 months away from having the body I always wanted. It's the real deal.

[mpipes]

it is VERY likely you will lose a disproportionate amount of muscle to your fat levels whiuch in the end will RAISE your bodyfat percentage.

Yeah and that's only going to happen when people are already sic-lean in the first place, trying to get leaner when they really have no practical reason for trying to lose more fat.

Plus, this discussion is about storing fat in a deficit, and a BF% that goes up because of muscle loss (rarely ever happens) has nothing to do with storing fat in a deficit. Someone that's 6% then loses 2lbs of LBM (muscle, water, glycogen) and goes up to 7% is not storing additional fat while dieting.

Pardon me but to me the problem is how you know you are in a Calorie deficit for sure ? The second question is how would you define starvation ?

You know you're in a deficit when you lose fat. Not losing anything? You're not in a deficit. Regardless of whatever calories you count, regardless of whatever the online calculators say, regardless of what the cardio machines, heart rate monitors, bodybuggs and go wear fits all report, if you're not losing, you're eating too much or not burning enough. It's that simple.

I think the generally accepted definition of starvation is something like an 800kcal intake but frankly, I don't think it's starvation until it's a total fast. Reason being, most people who attempt an 800kcal intake will never hit that number. They'll usually get a bit ravenous and end up overshooting their numbers in a binge, then they'll swear up and down they're not eating too much, but their results say otherwise. In reality their binge puts them at break-even or over their maintenance level. Suddenly you have people saying starvation diets don't work, when in fact they do, but most dieters just suck at dieting.

The thing is the body have adaptive thermogenesis. If you eat 10Kcals a day more than you "move". After a year you would by your logic gain a full lb of fat. You wont. Your body is able to adapt it's energy consumption by a small margin under normal circumstances. I will not throw number out of the blue because i need to check them but it's in the order of 10% of your metabolic rate.

Yeah the metabolism always adjusts to its environment in attempt to maintain homeostasis. Thing is, it has its limits. The adaptation when reducing calories never negates the calorie reduction. Whether a dieter goes with a moderate 200kcal deficit or a 2,000kcal deficit, at some point the metabolism is going to adjust and the diet approach will have to adjust with it. The 200kcal dieter will have to lower calories more to maintain the same results and the 2,000kcal dieter will have such stunning results that needing to take a break after a month or two won't be an issue or deterrent.

Then the other problem is the efficiency of the "voluntary dietary intake" as a way to measure what you have eaten (aka food logs / fitday / etc). If you use a scale you are probably at least 1-5% off... it goes way worse if you eye-judge the portions.

It's probably even harder to log correctly the calories spent...

While I am all for logging and tracking, technically you don't have to do any of that. All the calculators and calories tools are simply just estimates at best, and ****ty ones at that. All you really need is a mirror, or a camera so you can take pictures to get an objective view of yourself (the camera won't lie to you like your brain will) and a scale. If you're not seeing progress over time in the mirror, photos or scale, you just need to eat less than you currently do. It makes things easier if you have a closer idea of how much you regularly eat, but all you really have to do is cut down the portions of your regular meals, at every meal. Just cut out a little here and there and stay consistent with it until you start seeing progress.

People get wrapped up in all these online calculators and they forget the best way to do it is still by trial and error based on REAL WORLD results, not internet formulas.

If in a single day you have a Calorie surplus at some point then end the day with a deficit will you possibly store fat ?

No, the overall end result is still going to be fat loss because of the overall deficit. Whatever postprandial fat gain there might be is going to be immediately burned off because of the overall deficit.

I suppose you are on a small calorie deficit *as reported by a log*.

Define "small calorie deficit"

Then you eat tons of very fast GI sugar.

Define "tons"

After a small time you then eat saturated fat in big proportion with some more fast sugar. All is ok from a Cal log point of view.

No, all is not ok from a calorie point of view because whatever "tons" of sugar is, it's going to completely negate a "small calorie deficit" then you add even "more sugar" along with "saturated fat in big proportion" on top of it.

Unless you want to add some hard numbers to this theoretical situation, two doses of sugar and a big hunk of fat are going to blow a "small calorie deficit" completely out of the water and put this completely lost dieter over maintenance level.

Now the thing is that fast sugar will increase your insulin very fast.
The thing is that the body is calibrated to take apple for example.
So when it see that much concentration of sugar it believe you have eaten 100 apples. It'll raise the insulin accordingly.

For the record, fructose in fruits does not have any impact on insulin levels.. but back to talking about sugar....

However you did not eat that much apple and the insulin now pump the normal blood sugar into the cells. You are now in hypoglycemia (not enougth sugar). The body realize it's error and will make slowly start to destroy the insulin. However you still have a lot.

Now are you Starving yourself ? That is a very tough question. But the blood sugar say so.

If you go hypoglycemic after eating a lot of sugar, at this point both the sugar and the insulin have been cleared from the bloodstream and shoved into muscle tissue. That's a good thing because you don't want the sugar staying in the bloodstream. It's even better if you get regular exercise which keeps muscle tissue sensitive to insulin. Now what happens because of the acute hypoglycemia is the liver will release stored glucose into the bloodstream. It was recently partially replenished while eating that rush of sugar so it has plenty to stabilize blood sugar back to baseline in short time - in healthy individuals, at least. Diabetics are another story.

Now come in the delicious saturated fat. One of the most stable biological molecule. Only animals have the technology to make such a thing. It's mean to be a reserve so it's very hard to degrade. In fact it's one the very last molecule your body will try to use as a energy source, it's that just to stable to bother. Anyhow you have taken simple sugar with it so it's no question there's better source of energy available.

Now remember that insulin... It will probably take care of making that saturated fat for your reserve. Oh you do not get fat under deficit... unless you are starving yourself. It's a great thing your blood sugar say so!

|---

Now it's all theoretical, and you probably will never notice extra fat from that one time as, as I said you body is able to adapt a bit. (? la cheat meal)

However try to just count calories be on a deficit and eat 80% fast sugar and 20% saturated fat. What you eat IS important

insulin can not make fat from nothing. put a person on the diet above with a 1200kcal intake and they're going to lose fat because there's no excess energy left over to get stored, despite insulin levels. They'll probably lose muscle because of the lack of protein, and feel like crap in general without the other vitamins and nutrients from veggies, but they'll still lose fat.

I like the low on fast gi carb approach because the food that are either high in protein, high in fat or high in fiber are the food that make you feel full. Then I add veggies because it's very hard to overeat some of them. And also there's more in nutrition than body composition.

At the end of the day yes it's the cal deficit that is important. But eating junk then using a log to try to figure out your gain is not a very functional way of doing things. So all is important.

Agreed. Eating healthier foods makes it much easier to hit calorie targets while still enjoying a relatively large volume of food.

I certainly don't think people should throw caution to the wind and eat junkfood for the bulk of their diet, but they don't have to fear pasta, bread, potatoes or even small amounts of sugar in their coffee or tea either.

[trance__dreamer]

Fat can be stored while in a calorie deficit.

hmm... =S i'm not convinced. i firmly believe that fat/carbohydrates/protein can nly be stored as fat if it doesn't get used up. even if you're right, i'm not giving up jack ****. especially fruit, especially since it's now almost summer fruit season. eeee! =)

Slow down there guys, the reason people like to go low-carb or no-carb is so that the weight lost comes mostly from fat and not from muscle.

hmm...i thought it was the other way around: not enough carbohydrates makes you lose muscle. i've found my gains to be 1 zillion billion google times better while on high carb/low fat rather than high fat/low carb.

[sbbc]

after reading these forums for a long long time I've basically just boiled it down to this for my own reference...

protein = building blocks

carbs = energy

fats = hormonal balance

without the right amount of protein your body will probably start to lose that hard earned muscle

without carbs you will feel like crap and do half assed workouts

without fats your body will be less efficient in all functions

maintenance ratio (p/c/f) I usually end up around 35/35/30 because it's easy

bulking or intense exercise ratio I aim for 30/50/20 or 40/40/20

cutting I shoot for 40/40/20

all within approximate calorie targets.. too many calories and you'll start to gain fat.

people try to do super low fat diets.. it's hard because of calorie density of fat and it can be up to 30% of your daily intake... same with low carb which is also hard because of the sheer amount of protein and fat you have to eat (blech).. low protein isn't really an option unless you're shooting for the skinny fat look heh.

[J1n]

well if that were true then we wouldn't have hypoglycemic and on the other end of the spectrum diabetics now would we. btw you contradicted yourself with your own statements 1 being if a calorie was just a calorie then why did you loose strength going on keto?

was also wondering why the rudeness?

sorry didnt mean to be rude. i lost strength cause no carbs.

Anyways i was just trying to say in my OP that everyone thinks carbs = bad. my cooworkers didnt even believe me about the calories. they were like haha yeah nice try there buddy.

[Silleli]

And people wonder why I hate keto. If keto works for you, then by all means do it. But I will never understand a nutrition plan that lets you have hot dogs and pork rinds and not apples or brown rice.

LOL. Nice.

[athrun340]

easy I ate 6 jumbo eggs with 4 slices thick cut bacon and 4 sausages for breakfast (roughly 3 carbs). For the rest of the day I had turkey breast (0 carbs), chicken breasts-thighs-legs-wings (0 carbs), steaks (0 carbs), hamburger meat 80/20 (0 carbs), hot dogs (0 carbs), Italian sausages (0 carbs), salmon, tuna (fresh and canned), sashimi, all have zero carbs. Whey protein (post workout-roughly 6 grams of carbs for 2 servings ON Gold), I snacked on beef jerky (1 gram per serving), pork rinds (0 carbs), and cheese (provolone has 0 carbs). I logged down everything I ate, the time, nutritional info from the package and weighed the portions. It felt really weird at first eating like this (eating so much in volume, calories and fat) I was apprehensive that this would work, but it did. I ate every six hours till I was full. Some days just to throw in a little shock to the system, I even went up to 4,500 calories. I easily ate 12 oz. of steak, 6 chicken thighs, or 24 wings, with no problem. My diet ends this Friday, I 'll be off for a week then I'll be back on. I started at 255 lbs, 28% BF. I am down to 198 @ 14%. A great tool I found was the daily plate at Livestrong.com. It is a great way to keep track of your daily intake.

o lawd i dont think i can do that kind of diet. Imagine the sodium and the fats youre taking in. Atherosclerosis ftl.

good job losing weight btw.

[iDrive]

Damn mpipes you went hard lol (aka nice post)

It's funny because my friend falls into the "carbs make you fat" camp and doesn't believe that I can be losing weight while eating carbs and thinks I found a magical fat burner... Technically I have.. its called Eat Less

[J1n]

Yeah and that's only going to happen when people are already sic-lean in the first place, trying to get leaner when they really have no practical reason for trying to lose more fat.

Plus, this discussion is about storing fat in a deficit, and a BF% that goes up because of muscle loss (rarely ever happens) has nothing to do with storing fat in a deficit. Someone that's 6% then loses 2lbs of LBM (muscle, water, glycogen) and goes up to 7% is not storing additional fat while dieting.



You know you're in a deficit when you lose fat. Not losing anything? You're not in a deficit. Regardless of whatever calories you count, regardless of whatever the online calculators say, regardless of what the cardio machines, heart rate monitors, bodybuggs and go wear fits all report, if you're not losing, you're eating too much or not burning enough. It's that simple.

I think the generally accepted definition of starvation is something like an 800kcal intake but frankly, I don't think it's starvation until it's a total fast. Reason being, most people who attempt an 800kcal intake will never hit that number. They'll usually get a bit ravenous and end up overshooting their numbers in a binge, then they'll swear up and down they're not eating too much, but their results say otherwise. In reality their binge puts them at break-even or over their maintenance level. Suddenly you have people saying starvation diets don't work, when in fact they do, but most dieters just suck at dieting.



Yeah the metabolism always adjusts to its environment in attempt to maintain homeostasis. Thing is, it has its limits. The adaptation when reducing calories never negates the calorie reduction. Whether a dieter goes with a moderate 200kcal deficit or a 2,000kcal deficit, at some point the metabolism is going to adjust and the diet approach will have to adjust with it. The 200kcal dieter will have to lower calories more to maintain the same results and the 2,000kcal dieter will have such stunning results that needing to take a break after a month or two won't be an issue or deterrent.



While I am all for logging and tracking, technically you don't have to do any of that. All the calculators and calories tools are simply just estimates at best, and ****ty ones at that. All you really need is a mirror, or a camera so you can take pictures to get an objective view of yourself (the camera won't lie to you like your brain will) and a scale. If you're not seeing progress over time in the mirror, photos or scale, you just need to eat less than you currently do. It makes things easier if you have a closer idea of how much you regularly eat, but all you really have to do is cut down the portions of your regular meals, at every meal. Just cut out a little here and there and stay consistent with it until you start seeing progress.

People get wrapped up in all these online calculators and they forget the best way to do it is still by trial and error based on REAL WORLD results, not internet formulas.



No, the overall end result is still going to be fat loss because of the overall deficit. Whatever postprandial fat gain there might be is going to be immediately burned off because of the overall deficit.




Define "small calorie deficit"



Define "tons"



No, all is not ok from a calorie point of view because whatever "tons" of sugar is, it's going to completely negate a "small calorie deficit" then you add even "more sugar" along with "saturated fat in big proportion" on top of it.

Unless you want to add some hard numbers to this theoretical situation, two doses of sugar and a big hunk of fat are going to blow a "small calorie deficit" completely out of the water and put this completely lost dieter over maintenance level.



For the record, fructose in fruits does not have any impact on insulin levels.. but back to talking about sugar....



If you go hypoglycemic after eating a lot of sugar, at this point both the sugar and the insulin have been cleared from the bloodstream and shoved into muscle tissue. That's a good thing because you don't want the sugar staying in the bloodstream. It's even better if you get regular exercise which keeps muscle tissue sensitive to insulin. Now what happens because of the acute hypoglycemia is the liver will release stored glucose into the bloodstream. It was recently partially replenished while eating that rush of sugar so it has plenty to stabilize blood sugar back to baseline in short time - in healthy individuals, at least. Diabetics are another story.



insulin can not make fat from nothing. put a person on the diet above with a 1200kcal intake and they're going to lose fat because there's no excess energy left over to get stored, despite insulin levels. They'll probably lose muscle because of the lack of protein, and feel like crap in general without the other vitamins and nutrients from veggies, but they'll still lose fat.



Agreed. Eating healthier foods makes it much easier to hit calorie targets while still enjoying a relatively large volume of food.

I certainly don't think people should throw caution to the wind and eat junkfood for the bulk of their diet, but they don't have to fear pasta, bread, potatoes or even small amounts of sugar in their coffee or tea either.

WOW long post but very good.

[FlyingIllini]

Damn mpipes you went hard lol (aka nice post)

It's funny because my friend falls into the "carbs make you fat" camp and doesn't believe that I can be losing weight while eating carbs and thinks I found a magical fat burner... Technically I have.. its called Eat Less

Cutting carbs works for me. Yes, you have to be in deficit... but all else being equal I cut fat fastest when I go low carb

[Birddog6424]

I absolutely love keto. I have pretty much tried them all, and keto or a targetted keto work the best for me by far.

I am running one now (3% left to go to reach my goal of 9%). I rarely feel like I have an energy loss, but even if I did, lifting as heavy as I can is not my point. I am on a cut to lose fat, I am not bulking. I don't really care if I am not setting records on my lifts.

I mix in a targetted keto and it makes my muscles feel fuller. I can also get some recomp time on a TKD, which I can't just going keto or CKD.

The medical community seems to be in agreement (as much in agreement as the medical community can ever be) that for the short term, low carb will shed the most fat. So if you are 12% trying to get to 8%, it's a good option. However, the consensus seems to be that the longer the diet lasts, the closer they all come together. So if you are 25% trying to get to 10%, go with what you like, over time it all evens out.

[smackdaddyD]

This thread is filled with uninformed people who seriously need to read Good Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes.

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-.../dp/1400040787

I'm not even going to get into it, but the short answer is: Processed carbs are indeed the problem, calories are not all created equal (they are from an energy perspective but not from a metabolic one, this is the most common pitfall in dietary science history).

[Blender02]

For me carbs are evil. I struggled for years. I did low calorie, low fat, high protein. Finally I dropped my daily carbs to under 20 grams, ate 3,200 calories, and the fat just melted away.

X2... Everyone is different. When I keep my Carbs under 40 or so grams I don't store much fat and get very lean sparing muscle. When I up my carbs I get bloated and store body fat much more easy. Yes, I look bigger because my muscles are not flat but i also looked bloated. I have not noticed a strength difference on either a low carb or high carb diet but I do notice a difference in my indurance for Cardio; but not weight lifting. JMO...

[iDrive]

Cutting carbs works for me. Yes, you have to be in deficit... but all else being equal I cut fat fastest when I go low carb

All is means to an end. You acknowledge that you can lose fat when you're in a deficit but prefer to go low carb to do so, that's fine.
My friend doesn't even consider a diet with moderate/high carb (while still in a deficit) to be an option.

[strokin]

eww....someone farted

[AtlantaEsq]

And people wonder why I hate keto. If keto works for you, then by all means do it. But I will never understand a nutrition plan that lets you have hot dogs and pork rinds and not apples or brown rice.

^^^ This.

[Irongoat]

o lawd i dont think i can do that kind of diet. Imagine the sodium and the fats youre taking in. Atherosclerosis ftl.

good job losing weight btw.

Thanks it really has been a long,hard, confusing, and frustrating road. Miraculously my sodium range is actually at or around normal (2500 mg) daily. I watch the salt, because I do all my own food prep, I keep the snacks to a minimum, and I log everything. I drink 2-3 gallons of water a day, and I do cardio 5-6 times a week. My doctor told me that my cholesterol was normal under 200. This diet is only temporary, once I get to my goal weight and bf% I go back to chicken breast, tuna, salmon,buffalo,cottage cheese, veggies, and I can't wait for my first glass of milk (skim of course). I just know now to watch the carbs, and not be afraid of fats, the good kind. I have been training for years and all I ever got was chubby, I had pretty good size and strength, I had big arms, chest, shoulders, and legs but I had a fat face, and a gut. Every one is different and they respond differently to different diets, and training. You really have to experiment and see what works for you. It took me years to figure it out, I wish I had know sooner but I am glad I finally got it.

[Irongoat]

X2... Everyone is different. When I keep my Carbs under 40 or so grams I don't store much fat and get very lean sparing muscle. When I up my carbs I get bloated and store body fat much more easy. Yes, I look bigger because my muscles are not flat but i also looked bloated. I have not noticed a strength difference on either a low carb or high carb diet but I do notice a difference in my indurance for Cardio; but not weight lifting. JMO...

Same with me, my muscles get fuller but I get bloated. My strength gains are the same, no difference on either diet. But also with me the cardio endurance is a struggle. I always have to force myself. I usually do 15-25 minutes rowing @ 30-32 watts 5,000-8,000 meters to warm-up followed by 15 minutes of jumping rope pre-weights. After training I do 20 minutes on the elliptical, and then I would usually go to the track and jog for 3 miles. On this diet I can only get 10 minutes rowing, 10 minutes jump rope, save some energy for the weights, followed by 10-15 minutes on the elliptical. I am wiped at the end. I tried to run but I just cramped up.

[Pho3NiX]

You know you're in a deficit when you lose fat. Not losing anything? You're not in a deficit. Regardless of whatever calories you count, regardless of whatever the online calculators say, regardless of what the cardio machines, heart rate monitors, bodybuggs and go wear fits all report, if you're not losing, you're eating too much or not burning enough. It's that simple.

I do agree with you. See my concluding remark. However the whole point (as I read it) was between COUNTING and GOOD food. Indeed if it work it work that goes for everything.

Yeah the metabolism always adjusts to its environment in attempt to maintain homeostasis. Thing is, it has its limits.

Again we agree. All I said is that it make COUNTING harder.

All the calculators and calories tools are simply just estimates at best, and ****ty ones at that. All you really need is a mirror, or a camera so you can take pictures to get an objective view of yourself (the camera won't lie to you like your brain will) and a scale. If you're not seeing progress over time in the mirror, photos or scale, you just need to eat less than you currently do.

People get wrapped up in all these online calculators and they forget the best way to do it is still by trial and error based on REAL WORLD results, not internet formulas.

Again agree

No, the overall end result is still going to be fat loss because of the overall deficit. Whatever postprandial fat gain there might be is going to be immediately burned off because of the overall deficit.

This is what I do not know enough to agree. The whole case of ppl not getting enough food to loose fat make me believe the association" deficit = fat loss" is not that much automatic under all possible conditions.

The whole point of my example is that the whole "not storing extra fat" because "I'm in deficit" is a matter of chemical messenger. If you mess with those messenger by eating some things, then I do not believe the assumption is automatic.

Define "small calorie deficit"

For that one I was using the exact same term that few previous poster to answer to their post. See in context of thread.

No, all is not ok from a calorie point of view because whatever "tons" of sugar is, it's going to completely negate a "small calorie deficit" then you add even "more sugar" along with "saturated fat in big proportion" on top of it.

Unless you want to add some hard numbers to this theoretical situation, two doses of sugar and a big hunk of fat are going to blow a "small calorie deficit" completely out of the water and put this completely lost dieter over maintenance level.

Please understand my example. The whole point of my post is that food are more than potential energy source. Food interact with the whole chemical of your body. Thus if you see food ONLY as Calorie there is some way to negate the automatic "deficit=fat loss" assumption.

Yes my example is hard to make in real life because eating very fast carb dont make you feel full and migth even make you feel hungry so it's not easy to stay on the deficit by eating that. That reason alone is why I like low carb. (Or medium carb, but only near workout) Make it harder to blow the deficit.

insulin can not make fat from nothing.

This "NOTHING" is what I do not understand. Why would a calories deficit means NOTHING to build fat on ?

What if under some proper circonstance it was more thermodinamicly and chemically efficient to just eat its own muscle (or anything else) and store that fat molecule anyway? One of such circumstance is fasting. What if you could trigger (temporarily) that state using the right food induced messenger ?

Agreed. Eating healthier foods makes it much easier to hit calorie targets while still enjoying a relatively large volume of food.

I certainly don't think people should throw caution to the wind and eat junkfood for the bulk of their diet, but they don't have to fear pasta, bread, potatoes or even small amounts of sugar in their coffee or tea either.

This is not the point, it's perfectly possible to incorporate all them with moderation. The point (at least for me) is original poster making fun at the low carb movement and the girl that said brown bread is better than white one. The point was the ppl that said eat all you want but COUNT Calories.

Honestly for me I still prefer using those around workout if possible.
The truth for me is that low carb work well when I do it.

In the past 5 years I've lost 40 lbs in a summer on it. Then try to slowly get carb back. Then in the next two year get back all I've lost. Then lost again .. then got back again.

So what I'll have to say is that it work well but it's hard to have it as a lifestyle.
I'm trying to cut for a third time in a more lifestyle doable manner so hopefully I wont get it back in two years.

[1211]

grrr, its just a fad this whole "no carb" thing...when you kill your carbs all that happens is that you ger rid of a whole heap of water that the carbs already in your body are stored with. hence people find rapid weight loss when they kill their carbs...hey they might even look a lil skinnier too! (its the deffinate way to go if u wanna lose some weight to fit into "that dress" in a weeks time)

the fact is, that it requires more energy to convert carbs to adipose tissue as it does to conver fat to adipose tissue. there is more energy in a gram of fat than a gram of carbs. so what would you rather be eating???

at the end of the day i believe so long as your body is getting the right amount of nutrients i.e. good fats, protein, minerals and vitamins. a calorie controlled diet is the best way to lose weight.

i have not posted on this site for a long time, i used to split hairs between diets, calorie differences, macros etc. now, i just hit the gym 3-5times per week, run 3 times per week and foucs on a nutrient rich diet. things work much better for me this way. at a restaurant or in a supermarket i just look at what would be healthy for me i.e. salami vs tuna for a sandwich...

keep it simple people you will find life much more enjoyable and your weight loss more sustainable if you do so.

I look at you people eating 6 eggs, steaks, sausages, bacon...ur all on ur way to a heart attack and liver problems from too much protein, cholesterol and saturated fats. and ur trying to say that its going to be more beneficial for you than a smoke salomon, rocket and pesto pasta. hmmmm

[1211]

oh and the key reason people get diabetes is due to a significantly high BMI, not because you eat too many people carbs.

[atmilner]

no carbs isnt the way to go at all, you need carbs both fast and slow at different times of the day..surplus of carbs leads to them being stored as fat..the wrong kind of carbs (fast) are stored as fat anytime..but carbs are as important as anything IMO

calories are calories? wrong! before anyone blows up about this lets do an experiment..take two similar people one person go on an all oreo diet and the other on a clean diet full of protein slow carbs and fats with the same workouts and see what happens..the person on the oreo diet will store those oreos as fat and will have no gains whatsoever and the person on the real food diet will

too much of a deficit and the body will store fat

either way no matter what works for you i would suggest everyone trying a clean (all food groups) diet to see how it goes and what kind of gains you get

[Pho3NiX]

grrr, its just a fad this whole "no carb" thing...

I may have badly read the forum but I do not see no post about no carb
(Exept a few keto post)

oh and the key reason people get diabetes is due to a significantly high BMI, not because you eat too many people carbs.

BMI is a statistical correlation tool. Nothing more nothing less. It's not the cause of anything. At best you can do correlation between an symptom and BMI.

To this i'll simply add that Type II Diabete prevention / "cure" diet are designed to increase insulin sensitivity by feeding you with thing that have low insulin impact.

[Birddog6424]

grrr, its just a fad this whole "no carb" thing...when you kill your carbs all that happens is that you ger rid of a whole heap of water that the carbs already in your body are stored with. hence people find rapid weight loss when they kill their carbs...hey they might even look a lil skinnier too! (its the deffinate way to go if u wanna lose some weight to fit into "that dress" in a weeks time)

the fact is, that it requires more energy to convert carbs to adipose tissue as it does to conver fat to adipose tissue. there is more energy in a gram of fat than a gram of carbs. so what would you rather be eating???

at the end of the day i believe so long as your body is getting the right amount of nutrients i.e. good fats, protein, minerals and vitamins. a calorie controlled diet is the best way to lose weight.

i have not posted on this site for a long time, i used to split hairs between diets, calorie differences, macros etc. now, i just hit the gym 3-5times per week, run 3 times per week and foucs on a nutrient rich diet. things work much better for me this way. at a restaurant or in a supermarket i just look at what would be healthy for me i.e. salami vs tuna for a sandwich...

keep it simple people you will find life much more enjoyable and your weight loss more sustainable if you do so.

I look at you people eating 6 eggs, steaks, sausages, bacon...ur all on ur way to a heart attack and liver problems from too much protein, cholesterol and saturated fats. and ur trying to say that its going to be more beneficial for you than a smoke salomon, rocket and pesto pasta. hmmmm

That is a truly uninformed post my friend. Everyone always says the same thing. Your gonna have a heart attack! High cholesterol!!! Saturated fats are de debil!!!

Low Carbohydrate Diets Do Not Harm Arteries

Low carbohydrate, high fat/protein diets have been proven to help people lose fat quickly. Health experts however, are worried that high fat weightloss diets promote blood vessel disease, heart attack, stroke, and diabetes. Fifty years of research showed that diets high in cholesterol and and saturated fats were linked to to heart and blood vessel disease. Most recent studies show that weight loss is healthy in people who follow reduced calorie diets regardless of their fat, protein, or carbohydrate content.

Australian researchers in an eight-week study, showed that low carbohydrate weight loss diets had no effect on arterial health. They compared the effects of a low calorie, low carb, high saturated fat with a low calorie, low carb, low fat diet on blood vessel health. People lost weight on both diets, and they improved equally in measures of blood vessel health.
(American Journal Clinical Nutrition, 87: 567-76 2008)

Now I will be the first to admit, a single study doesn't prove anything. I have said so myself many times. But there is more than a single study, there is a trend quickly gaining momentum amongst the medical community that all the things we used to think were bad, aren't so bad after all.

The egg is a perfect example. It was shunned and hated for how long because of it's high cholesterol content? Now we know it is perhaps one of the healthiest food sources available anywhere, and cholesterol has many important health functions. The medical community is backing away from cholesterol as the cause of heart disease, the new stance is that there is some sort of correlation that they don't quite understand.

When people consumed butter, eggs, and saturated fats, we had far less incident of heart disease than we do now. In fact, it didn't exist. Now it's our number one killer by a landslide.

Now we have an entire society ingesting rancid hydrogenated vegetable oil and eating sugar by the long ton. We are far less healthy than we once were. It's been a slow recovery from the knee jerk reaction of the American Heart Society to finally admit the mistakes they made back in the 50's when they began changing the the food we eat. But science is catching on and the truth is leaking out.

[J1n]

so if you can store fat on a deficit then what do you think about building muscle on one?

[Pho3NiX]

so if you can store fat on a deficit then what do you think about building muscle on one?

Other than some anecdotal evidence of ppl having achieved this using stims / thyroid/etc supplement and lot of meal through the day to *theoretically* keep the metabolism very active .... I have no idea, no opinion and no interest on the subject.

Some ppl also claim it's possible on the "noob gain" period of time.

All I was saying is there's no need to become an extremist to any camp and the automatic reaction "deficit = fat loss" is I believe an oversimplification. However If you follow that and have general goodwill etc... it probably always work unless you really do everything to prove it wrong.


However it's my experience that you can still have muscle adaptation, gain strength, improve neurological response and improve form of movement on Caloric deficit... which is what I'm really interested at.

[Al Swearengen]

sorry didnt mean to be rude. i lost strength cause no carbs.

Anyways i was just trying to say in my OP that everyone thinks carbs = bad. my cooworkers didnt even believe me about the calories. they were like haha yeah nice try there buddy.

accepted and i agree as to carbs not being a bad thing i was just trying to point out they do function differently for some of us so science needs to catch up with some in depth carb V protein V fat diets in trained individuals with a large study group instead of 10 people. lol

if a calorie was just a calorie and nothing more than the same form of energy being utilized by our systems once metabolized then you shouldn't have lost strength going low carb. i for one know several people whom noticed no energy loss going low carb which just shows we are all a little metabolically different.

so if you can store fat on a deficit then what do you think about building muscle on one?

i don't know that i believe in fat storage on a deficit but i do know you can build muscle mass on one if you're a noob lifter which brings up a whole can of worms as to how that happens. i mean even though a noob is loosing fat they are very capable of gaining muscle so it seems at this point our bodies are able to utilize above maintenance calories from fat storage for the sole purpose of making muscle when needed for the noob. would be nice to isolate that process eh.

[PopeGregorius]

So much broscience in this thread.

the fact is, that it requires more energy to convert carbs to adipose tissue as it does to conver fat to adipose tissue. there is more energy in a gram of fat than a gram of carbs. so what would you rather be eating???

Fat does not raise insulin and blood sugar levels, carbs and protein do. If you are hyperinsulemic then increasing fat in the diet (ie a keto diet) will aid in fat loss.

no carbs isnt the way to go at all, you need carbs both fast and slow at different times of the day

Try telling that to a diabetic http://www.diabetes-book.com/articles/diet.shtml
Fat and protein are essential to the diet. Carbs aren't.

[Djin]

Just want to dime in one last time.

/thread

This thread is **** now, it was good... that's all.