Thoughts on article about low carbs

[Guff]

I just read this article and I found it interesting. So I started working up some numbers for myself and found it very hard to hit the numbers that she suggests. Any of you macro guru's want to take a look and give me your opinion?

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/carb...x-pack-abs.htm

[BlowTorch]

It works. Good article.

[freebirdmac]

Phfftt. Only 9 calories per pound??? Right off that's bogus. Carbs = water. Lowering carbs helps get rid of water. Losing body fat is about cals in versus cals out.

What most people need is a good dose of patience and not water illusions.

[-=FLEX=-]

It works. Good article.

Phfftt. Only 9 calories per pound???

I agree with both of these statements.

I've been more or less doing this for a few months, losing an average of 2 lbs per week at the beginning, then about 1lb per week, although last two weeks I've stagnated.

But I eat a heck of a lot more than 9 calories per pound per day.

I've been able to maintain most of my muscle mass while losing 25 lbs of fat since the middle of March, and I don't count calories on weekends.

-=FLEX=-

[nikkiloo2]

It works. Good article.

lol ... were we just talking about this in the other thread???

Not enough calories imo either. Except for too low on the calories I think it seems like a good idea too, carb/calorie cycling.

[Guff]

I was crunching the numbers and attempting to get the amount of protein she suggests and still hit the calorie requirements and was having difficulty coming up with a diet that would fit. I did get it pretty close though, maybe I'm paying too much attention to the details.

[-=FLEX=-]

I was crunching the numbers and attempting to get the amount of protein she suggests and still hit the calorie requirements and was having difficulty coming up with a diet that would fit. I did get it pretty close though, maybe I'm paying too much attention to the details.

That article makes it a LOT more complicated than it needs to be.

You're going to have to experiment anyway until you find what works for you. It took me a while, but I got a groove.

And I eat more protein that the article suggests too. Also started to supplement with BCAAs before and after my workouts a few weeks ago. My strength is back on track since I've been doing that. I have a strict diet all day with only trace carbs and generally dinner consists of meat and veggies or salad, and I don't count calories at dinner either (but I don't go nuts). Protein shake post workout, mid afternoon, and before bed.

It's working for me.

-=FLEX=-

[otiskii]

Is that with milk or water?

[bebeklein]

I also think 9 X BW is a little low. I've read 10 is the lowest to go. 12 seems to be a ballpark baseline.

But i definitely think there are merits to carb cycling as a means of stripping body fat...and at lower levels of bf% (which is what is needed for ab def) I do think it's more than just cals in/out....at this level I do think you need to look at macros and even timings

As for your question about diet, on low-carb days you prob should only eat fibrous carbs, especially the green ones..

asparagus, broccoli, cauliflower, onions, mushrooms, spinach and peppers

So your diet might look like this
Omelet with cheese and spinach
Salmon with spinach salad drizzled with olive oil
Lean beef & broccoli

However, what I think is missing is that on those low carb days there should be some fat and her calculation leaves it out entirely. It's just Pro = 1.5g X BW, and then Carbs = 50g....no fat....so I think that's where it's wrong.

I've read many of her articles and IMO she gives good info/advice.

[JC480]

The thing I don't like about long term low carbing is the lack of antioxidants. Middle aged people have to think about cancer prevention...many cancers start in the window that opens around 40 years old.

Not to mention the assistance antioxidants provide to protect us from excess free radicals produced by high amounts of physical activity/exercise. This is one reason you hear about people who exercise alot getting sick.

Short term I don't believe it's a problem...but many people on this site seem to be adopting this as a way of life and they should understand the consequences of restricting their diet from needed phytochemicals that protect us.

So while low carbing can help shed fed & excess water, long term you'd be better off consuming copious amounts of fruits as well as fibrous veggies with lean meat and healthy, limited fat sources.

[tonni]

Is that with milk or water?

I would think water if fat lose is the goal....

[-=FLEX=-]

Is that with milk or water?

Since going on my cut I've been making all my protein shakes with water only. I do use 2 scoops instead of one, though. Both to make up for the lack of milk protein and also to make it more palatable.

-=FLEX=-

[2nd_chance]

The thing I don't like about long term low carbing is the lack of antioxidants. Middle aged people have to think about cancer prevention...many cancers start in the window that opens around 40 years old.

That's what coffee is for. It has more antioxidants than any food or beverage in the world. I have drank approximately 246,375 cups in the past 27 years, conservatively speaking of course. I'm gonna live to be 120.

[BlowTorch]

lol ... were we just talking about this in the other thread???

Not enough calories imo either. Except for too low on the calories I think it seems like a good idea too, carb/calorie cycling.

I think it's spot on.. Here's my math.

My BMR is 1859.42 (at 191 lbs) calories a day. Using the formula above

9 calories X 191 = 1719 calories or a reduction of 140.42 calories under maintenance to get have a six pack on diet alone.

Giving the premise that all calories are not created equal you should be able to pull this off with proper food selection.

[freebirdmac]

I think it's spot on.. Here's my math.

My BMR is 1859.42 (at 191 lbs) calories a day. Using the formula above

9 calories X 191 = 1719 calories or a reduction of 140.42 calories under maintenance to get have a six pack on diet alone.

Giving the premise that all calories are not created equal you should be able to pull this off with proper food selection.

BMR is what you have to eat to maintain if you didn't get out of bed! It's not your maintenance.

Assuming you are lifting heavy 3-4 times a week your maintenance cals are around 2800. To lose 1 pound a week you'd like to be at 2300. Now if you are sedentary (but not in bed all day) your maintenance is around 2200 and you'd need to drop to 1700 to lose 1 pound a week.

[BlowTorch]

BMR is what you have to eat to maintain if you didn't get out of bed! It's not your maintenance.

Assuming you are lifting heavy 3-4 times a week your maintenance cals are around 2800. To lose 1 pound a week you'd like to be at 2300. Now if you are sedentary (but not in bed all day) your maintenance is around 2200 and you'd need to drop to 1700 to lose 1 pound a week.

I know this works different for different people. But I'm gaining at 2300K a day and my pre-contest diet for 6 weeks was at 1650 calories a day and lost weight.

These calculators are guidelines but have found them pretty close for me at least.

[freebirdmac]

I know this works different for different people. But I'm gaining at 2300K a day and my pre-contest diet for 6 weeks was at 1650 calories a day and lost weight.

These calculators are guidelines but have found them pretty close for me at least.

Dude, your metabolism is stunted. All you should be gaining at 2300 post contest is water. No doubt you lost weight at 1650. I lose weight at 1650. But what you do in the waning weeks pre-contest is different than simple dieting to see abs.

[BlowTorch]

Dude, your metabolism is stunted. All you should be gaining at 2300 post contest is water. No doubt you lost weight at 1650. I lose weight at 1650. But what you do in the waning weeks pre-contest is different than simple dieting to see abs.

Maybe I didn't clarify after re-reading my posts. That's NET 2300 calories but still, I'm growing. If I ate 3700 calories as suggested by some I'd be big as a house (fat) in no time. Again, this is what works for me.

[nikkiloo2]

I know this works different for different people. But I'm gaining at 2300K a day and my pre-contest diet for 6 weeks was at 1650 calories a day and lost weight.

These calculators are guidelines but have found them pretty close for me at least.

They're guidelines, like you said, for people who have an average bodyfat percentage. This calculator would have me eating 7900 calories per week, or around 1200 a day ... I weigh between 115 and 119 and always assume 119, body fat tested at 14% 2 months ago and 12.5% more recently.
I also had my bmr tested a few weeks ago with that BodyGem thing that you have to breath into for 10 minutes and it came out to 1600 calories a day at rest. When you add in my exercise my maintenace is close to 2000 calories, lets say give or take 10% for BodyGem error, so minimum would be 1800 for maintenance at my current weight/activity level.
I've been doing keto for 8 weeks at about 1600 cals a day with a weekly carb up of 2200-2400 calories and drop about half a pound a week, which is fine with me ... I'm patient.
I am going to try this carb/calorie cycling thing starting tomorrow and run with it for 2 weeks as a diet break but I'll keep my calories higher than suggested in the article.
Thanks for your help; I wouldn't have considered doing this if it weren't for the other thread where you tossed it out there

[Guff]

I am going to try this carb/calorie cycling thing starting tomorrow and run with it for 2 weeks as a diet break but I'll keep my calories higher than suggested in the article.

The article has me at 1160 a day for non-training days. That seems insanely low to me.

[freebirdmac]

Maybe I didn't clarify after re-reading my posts. That's NET 2300 calories but still, I'm growing. If I ate 3700 calories as suggested by some I'd be big as a house (fat) in no time. Again, this is what works for me.

Well that's better. Most do not talk "net" calories. I don't even know why one would want to complicate things that way. Yeah 3700 would be too much. 2800 plus 200-500 puts you at 3000 - 3300 for a bulking cycle.

[BlowTorch]

Well that's better. Most do not talk "net" calories. I don't even know why one would want to complicate things that way. Yeah 3700 would be too much. 2800 plus 200-500 puts you at 3000 - 3300 for a bulking cycle.

I have found myself making too many assumptions on some of my posts.. I track net calories because I think it's important to track what you burn to get accurate results. I'm a calorie weenie and don't really bulk diet but trying to stay lean while making gains and so far it's working.

We'll see soon enough..