Low Carb Dieting/Working Out Question

[CATCH17]

That isn't really what he was stated.

What he is stating is that 2000 calories eaten from a carb as opposed to protein is different in terms of fat. Thus, if the body is meeting the necessary caloric levels of food of all it's functions and has excess calories remaining, the excess calories from carbs would be stored as fat, but the proteing wouldn't.

Besides the fact it's erroneuous as regards to insulin, i.e. insulin is released even when protein is taken in and carbs are limited, it negates physics. Diabetics still get fat irrespective of the 'insuling regulation'. The body has a set-point for caloric usage and anything above that is stored as excess energy, which is nothing but fat.

In your case, if you can't release fat, you'll just keep getting bigger and bigger, irrespective of the enrgy expenditure, which is nothing but you doing some type of activity. It would never happen and if it did, you'd probably explode.

Which goes back to just needing to find out your daily calorie requirements and filling it in with the propper macronutrients for your body.

No need to avoid fats, carbs, or protein. You need a balance of all 3.

 

[rickjameschinaclub]

Which goes back to just needing to find out your daily calorie requirements and filling it in with the propper macronutrients for your body.

No need to avoid fats, carbs, or protein. You need a balance of all 3.

Exactly..

As I said before, athletes carb-load because of glycogen, which is the source the body utilizes first for strenuous activity. You won't find a world-class athlete that doesn't carb-load for building up the glycogen stores. It's just not possible to perform at high levels and it doesn't make logical sense that the primary means of expending energy for a human being comes from an ernegy source, i.e crabohydrates, that is supposedly 'bad'. Even when fat is used by the body to convert into energy, the body still uses glycogen to actually break down the fat.

As I said before, protein and fats, despite all the bogus stigma, do have benefits. Diabetics with insulin-regulation issues do much better with a high-protein low-carb diet. Fats, particularly saturated, provided multiple benefits, amonst them the fat-soluble vitamins, as well as a better omega 3-omega 6 ratios.

But as far as dieting goes, a higher fat-higher protein diet can help, because these nutrients are more satiating as opposed to carbs, and one will more likely eat less. Also, more nutrient dense foods are probably better from the perspective of weight loss, because your body is getting all the necessary nutrients from less calorie dense sources than say from eating doritos all the time, which have plenty of calories, depending upon how much one eats, but less nutrients. Your brain would probably not create certain urges for foods to get nutrients, that aren't being adequately maintained despite the high-calorie diet.

 

[Thatkidbob]

That isn't really what he was stated.

What he is stating is that 2000 calories eaten from a carb as opposed to protein is different in terms of fat. Thus, if the body is meeting the necessary caloric levels of food of all it's functions and has excess calories remaining, the excess calories from carbs would be stored as fat, but the proteing wouldn't.

Besides the fact it's erroneuous as regards to insulin, i.e. insulin is released even when protein is taken in and carbs are limited, it negates physics. Diabetics still get fat irrespective of the 'insuling regulation'. The body has a set-point for caloric usage and anything above that is stored as excess energy, which is nothing but fat.

In your case, if you can't release fat, you'll just keep getting bigger and bigger, irrespective of the enrgy expenditure, which is nothing but you doing some type of activity. It would never happen and if it did, you'd probably explode.

I see where you're coming from, but in truth it's quite a bit more complicated.

Here's a couple great, but somewhat simplified, articles on what I'm talking about:
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/pancreas/insulin_phys.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermic_effect_of_food

Your body does have a set point, which is your RMR: your resting metabolic rate, which is exactly what it sounds like. It's the amount of calories you burn in the absence of activity. Excercise or activity adds to that base rate, as does the thermic effect of the foods you eat. In a nutshell, the thermic effect of food is how much energy your body uses processing the foods you eat.

Protein & Complex carbs require much more processing than fat, which requires very little. Fiber, for example, is so hard to process that certain fiber rich foods have the net effect of eating zero or even negative calories when TEF is factored in. This is one way that 2000 calories of fat are different from 2000 calories of protein.

There's way more to it than this, I'm just a guy that's read a little about nutrition, but the glycemic index, macronutrient breakdown, temperature and even the timing of your meals in relationship to activities and each other all matter, and calories are not equal.

Read up on insulin though... It promotes fat storage & inhibits the breakdown of fat, which results in a higher body fat % even when all other factors are the same.

 

[rickjameschinaclub]

Protein & Complex carbs require much more processing than fat, which requires very little. Fiber, for example, is so hard to process that certain fiber rich foods have the net effect of eating zero or even negative calories when TEF is factored in. This is one way that 2000 calories of fat are different from 2000 calories of protein.

1.

If something is not processed, than that has nothing to do with the issue of calorie storage, because the calories go straight down the toilet. Further, fiber isn't digested by the body, it is digested by the flora within the gut. As an aside, the gut flora is another player in terms of it's influence in dictating the set-point of an individual.

2.

If proteins and carbs require much more processing than fat, then logically, the body has to put more effort into breaking down the nutrient, meaning it is expending more energy, meaning it is utilizing more calories to break down proteins and fats. And the rest is stored as glycogen.

3.

It actually depends on the carbs. Simple carbs, i.e. simple sugars go straight into the blood-stream and require very little processing. Complex carbs on the other hand take a longer time to process, because of the fiber. Further, because of this time, they normally don't spike the blood levels, meaning they satiate a lot better than simple carbs, leading once again to less calorie consumption.

Read up on insulin though... It promotes fat storage & inhibits the breakdown of fat, which results in a higher body fat % even when all other factors are the same.

No, it doesn't. Again, type 1 diabetics, because of insulin resistance still get fat.

 

[ghst187]

Right now I weigh 257 lbs. Started at 290 lbs on November 6th. Want to get to 190 by June.

I'm currently doing 60-90 minutes of cardio, along with weights 6 days a week. The weights I'm doing Day 1 - Shoulders and Chest Day 2 - biceps/triceps Day 3- Legs. Abs every other day.

I'm allowing myself a "cheat day" the one day of the week I'm not working out (Sundays as of right now). I'm noticing that I put on a few lbs during that cheat day, but overall have been making progress from week to week.

Do you think having that cheat day is important in terms of long term fitness? I'd really like to keep the weight off once I get down to 12 percent body fat or so.

as for eating...i HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend the nutribullet. What you need, and every diet needs, is "sustainability". If you hate doing it, you won't be able to maintain it indefinitely and will gain the weight back or just be miserable in general. I can't imagine eating two cans of tuna a day, one for breakfast no less, is sustainable. Heck, it sounds pretty terrible. With the nutribullet, I'm getting a superfood smoothie with zero fat and filling out my daily requirements for fruits and veggies as well as dropping in some super boosters liks Goji, Chia, and Acai. In a nutshell, my breakfast is usually about a cup and a half of kale and spinach, baby carrots, blueberries, strawberries, pitted cherries, half banana, half orange, blackberries, walnuts, goji powder, acai powder, chia seeds, sesame seeds, and flax seeds. While I could never eat all that by themselves or even in a salad, the nutribullet blasts them all into a smoothie that tastes great. I look forward to it everyday and often have two a day. The nutribullet also breaks down the cellular structure of the leafy greens, berries, and nuts into a form where your body gets the full nutrition from each ingredient. And I must mention again, it tastes really great. I have never felt as good as I do now and since I started with it a few months ago....more energy, losing weight....etc.

As for working out, I've done most things and its hard to beat the beachbody workouts, especially the Insanity, Asylum volume 1, and Asylum volume 2 series'. It will have you on a good routine that mixes up muscle groups and will blend strength with cardio and you'll shred fat like you never have.

 

[honyock]

That isn't really what he was stated.

What he is stating is that 2000 calories eaten from a carb as opposed to protein is different in terms of fat. Thus, if the body is meeting the necessary caloric levels of food of all it's functions and has excess calories remaining, the excess calories from carbs would be stored as fat, but the proteing wouldn't.

If you're referring to my post, which you took to be a defense of Gary Taubes, then that isn't what I stated. None of the part in bold is what I stated. In essence, what I said was that not all calories are created equally. You seemed to be agreeing with me in your later post.

Besides the fact it's erroneuous as regards to insulin, i.e. insulin is released even when protein is taken in and carbs are limited, it negates physics. Diabetics still get fat irrespective of the 'insuling regulation'. The body has a set-point for caloric usage and anything above that is stored as excess energy, which is nothing but fat.

Insulin is released in the presence of carbs. To a lesser degree, it is also released in the presence of protein. It isn't released in the presence of dietary fat. It's actually more complicated than that. Insulin is released when thinking about food, or in anticipation of food. But dietary fat and carbs cause a very different reaction in the body. Neither is necessarily good or bad, but the body doesn't treat them equally.

BTW, fat isn't necessarily bad either. For example, it's a hell of a lot more efficient to be fat in the extreme cold, because of the insulation that it provides than be skinny, which is why certain animals have evolved fatty-type bodies. Eskimoes possess fatty bodies. Fat also benefits swimmers as well, because of the natural buoyancy effect. Excess body fat to a degree, for example, has been correlated in some studies to be protective for elderly people.

To a degree, yes. Of course some body fat is good and healthy. But beyond a certain point...well, obesity has a ton of complications and is correlated with all manner of serious health problems.

Besides the fact it's erroneuous as regards to insulin, i.e. insulin is released even when protein is taken in and carbs are limited, it negates physics. Diabetics still get fat irrespective of the 'insuling regulation'. The body has a set-point for caloric usage and anything above that is stored as excess energy, which is nothing but fat.

Not necessarily. It can be stored as fat, which among other things is available and necessary for smoothing out short term energy needs (between meals, or at night when no calories are coming in.) It also is available to burn as energy immediately. It doesn't necessarily go directly into fatty acids stores in adipose tissue, it can be used for activity. The problem comes when the body is in a continual state of insulin resistance (one way this can happen is by excessive and continual intake of simple carbs, which some people seem to handle better than others) and can't efficiently tap into the energy stored in fat cells.

None of this violates the laws of physics or is in contradiction to the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[rickjameschinaclub]

Not necessarily. It can be stored as fat, which among other things is available and necessary for smoothing out short term energy needs (between meals, or at night when no calories are coming in.) It also is available to burn as energy immediately. It doesn't necessarily go directly into fatty acids stores in adipose tissue, it can be used for activity. The problem comes when the body is in a continual state of insulin resistance (one way this can happen is by excessive and continual intake of simple carbs, which some people seem to handle better than others) and can't efficiently tap into the energy stored in fat cells.
.

Again, that is what I stated earlier, i.e. any excess energy is stored as fat, provided it isn't burned for energy. I didn't mention activity in this sentence, because it's not what I was focusing on and was already well-known from my posts. This is exactly what I stated, which is weight gain is a matter of excess calories.

The manner of processing of carbs or fats for protein for that matter has little relation to this point. There is not a single study in the long-term that proves any difference in terms of weight gain as it relates to this point, keeping CALORIE INTAKE THE SAME, and critical evaluation proves it time and time again.

Insulin is released in the presence of carbs. To a lesser degree, it is also released in the presence of protein. It isn't released in the presence of dietary fat. It's actually more complicated than that. Insulin is released when thinking about food, or in anticipation of food. But dietary fat and carbs cause a very different reaction in the body. Neither is necessarily good or bad, but the body doesn't treat them equally.

To a lesser degree? Protein can cause just as much, if not more release of insulin than carbs. Further, your argument is predicated on the argument that insulin is the only hormone that is released that deals with fat storage. Leptin and ghrelin are also released and have more impact on how fat is stored than insulin.

Your confusing the issue of storage of fat versus the manner in which a calorie is processed. If you claim insulin is what causes fat storage, that is scientifically wrong.

To a degree, yes. Of course some body fat is good and healthy. But beyond a certain point...well, obesity has a ton of complications and is correlated with all manner of serious health problems.

So is being excessively thin and the definitions of obesity have been constantly changing over time. There is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes obesity.

 

[honyock]

The manner of processing of carbs or fats for protein for that matter has little relation to this point. There is not a single study in the long-term that proves any difference in terms of weight gain as it relates to this point, keeping CALORIE INTAKE THE SAME, and critical evaluation proves it time and time again.

There have been some short term studies that have indicated differences. the long-term research is finally getting funded. The big research dollars for a few decades now have been spent on low-fat, low calorie diets, and on dietary fat and heart disease. I suspect that when the research is finally done, the "calories are all that matter" idea won't fare so well.

And just looking at the American population over the past forty years is enough to start to be suspicious of the idea that changing macronutrient levels don't affect weight loss. In that time span, our macronutrient percentages have changed as a population - dietary fat has decreased as a percentage, dietary carbohydrates have increased (and it's suggestive that much of the increase in carb intake has been the most highly processed carbs, sugar and high fructose corn syrup). So has our weight, as well as diabetes levels. None of this is proof of anything, but it is suggestive enough to warrant more research.

I didn't mention activity in this sentence, because it's not what I was focusing on and was already well-known from my posts.

One of the problems with focusing only on calories when talking about weight loss is that it vastly oversimplifies the subject. The endgame of that approach is that a calorie is a calorie. It doesn't address the question of whether the metanutrients DO have an effect, not only on immediate weight loss but on longer term retention of the results. It doesn't address how the different metanutrients affect hunger/satiety, or energy/lethargy. Do carbs stimulate overeating? Does fat? Do they differentially affect spikes in the body's ability to smoothly supply energy, or create spikes? Do they differentially encourage or discourage activity levels? All those factors could affect or drive hunger and caloric intake. Which ones create the best chance of successful calorie restriction? Are they all exactly the same in that regard?

Those questions have a direct bearing on weight loss. The research hasn't been done. To say they don't matter, aren't relevant to weight loss or gain, because the research hasn't been done, is some mighty premature decision making.

The irony is, nutrition science has been dominated for at least forty years by two ideas: A calorie is a calorie - what is relevant to weight loss/gain is nothing more than caloric intake. And to cut our weight, we need to cut dietary fat. Think about it. Those two contradict each other. The scientific world has been stepping on its own tail with two contradictory truisms. And the research results over the past forty years, driven by those two ideas, have been uneven and contradictory while ignoring any competing ideas. And one thing that most researchers acknowledge is that calorie restriction doesn't seem to work - it can for some people, but it fails on a research level pretty consistently. If that's all that matters for weight loss, it's fair to ask why it isn't working.

Further, your argument is predicated on the argument that insulin is the only hormone that is released that deals with fat storage. Leptin and ghrelin are also released and have more impact on how fat is stored than insulin.

Yes, both are key players in energy storage/utilization. And although the research is still pretty young on both, there are indications that both are regulated and controlled to at least some extent by insulin.

Your confusing the issue of storage of fat versus the manner in which a calorie is processed.

My point (and we may just have to disagree on this) is that there is enough research out there, as well as historical data, to suspect that the issue of fat storage/utilization is more relevant to what we understand about weight loss and gain than you seem to be claiming.

So is being excessively thin and the definitions of obesity have been constantly changing over time. There is no agreed upon definition of what constitutes obesity.

Well, the average man and woman are both about 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960. No matter your definition of obesity, that's a significant gain. It works out to an increase in BMI of about a 12% for both men and women.

 

[rickjameschinaclub]

There have been some short term studies that have indicated differences. the long-term research is finally getting funded. The big research dollars for a few decades now have been spent on low-fat, low calorie diets, and on dietary fat and heart disease. I suspect that when the research is finally done, the "calories are all that matter" idea won't fare so well.

This is actually incorrect. When the studies go long-term, the actual 'benefits' of a particular diet, whether South-Beach, Atkins or any other diet based upon 'metabolic' advantage does not simply pan out. Short-term changes, like all diets show some benefits in weight loss.

And just looking at the American population over the past forty years is enough to start to be suspicious of the idea that changing macronutrient levels don't affect weight loss. In that time span, our macronutrient percentages have changed as a population - dietary fat has decreased as a percentage, dietary carbohydrates have increased (and it's suggestive that much of the increase in carb intake has been the most highly processed carbs, sugar and high fructose corn syrup). So has our weight, as well as diabetes levels. None of this is proof of anything, but it is suggestive enough to warrant more research.

Take a look at the calorie consumption over the past forty years... Like I said, none of the studies, long-term, show any difference and these are rnadomly-controlled studies.

One of the problems with focusing only on calories when talking about weight loss is that it vastly oversimplifies the subject. The endgame of that approach is that a calorie is a calorie. It doesn't address the question of whether the metanutrients DO have an effect, not only on immediate weight loss but on longer term retention of the results. It doesn't address how the different metanutrients affect hunger/satiety, or energy/lethargy. Do carbs stimulate overeating? Does fat? Do they differentially affect spikes in the body's ability to smoothly supply energy, or create spikes? Do they differentially encourage or discourage activity levels? All those factors could affect or drive hunger and caloric intake. Which ones create the best chance of successful calorie restriction? Are they all exactly the same in that regard?

Again, as I stated before protein and fats have their place in that they may be beneficial in how they provide more satiety than, say a starchy food that spikes blood-sugar levels only to create a crash afterwards. But this spiking doesn't pertain to many carbs, that have a low glycemic index. But again, that has little contention to the point, which is a calorie is a calorie.

Those questions have a direct bearing on weight loss. The research hasn't been done. To say they don't matter, aren't relevant to weight loss or gain, because the research hasn't been done, is some mighty premature decision making.

Yes, they have been done. Not a single-random controlled, regulated study has shown any proof of some sort of metabolic advantage. They consistently show the exact opposite.

The irony is, nutrition science has been dominated for at least forty years by two ideas: A calorie is a calorie - what is relevant to weight loss/gain is nothing more than caloric intake. And to cut our weight, we need to cut dietary fat. Think about it. Those two contradict each other. The scientific world has been stepping on its own tail with two contradictory truisms. And the research results over the past forty years, driven by those two ideas, have been uneven and contradictory while ignoring any competing ideas. And one thing that most researchers acknowledge is that calorie restriction doesn't seem to work - it can for some people, but it fails on a research level pretty consistently. If that's all that matters for weight loss, it's fair to ask why it isn't working.

The idea that fat-storage was a matter of insulin goes way back and has been proven false, because it is false. The idea whether one needs to cut dietary fat because it means one loses weight is the eaxct opposite of a calorie is a calorie. The idea of dietary fat being bad is predicated on something different.

Yes, both are key players in energy storage/utilization. And although the research is still pretty young on both, there are indications that both are regulated and controlled to at least some extent by insulin.

No, they are controlled by the brain.

My point (and we may just have to disagree on this) is that there is enough research out there, as well as historical data, to suspect that the issue of fat storage/utilization is more relevant to what we understand about weight loss and gain than you seem to be claiming.

No, there isn't.

Well, the average man and woman are both about 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960. No matter your definition of obesity, that's a significant gain. It works out to an increase in BMI of about a 12% for both men and women.

That can be attributable to a number of factor's including a sedentary life-style, portion sizes have increased throughout that time, more access to wealth and food, as a result of shifts to the city.

 

[Stryker44]

Was at the gym this morning, and the instructor for this cardio kickboxing class I took at the gym was haulin on the treadmill...when I got there, when I did my 50 minutes, then after I showered and got ready to leave she was still on the treadmill going at least 7 or 7.5 speed on an incline.

She's got an inshape body, but her face isn't attractive. Would like to tell her that she's inspiring without it sounding like a cheap come on, cause its not.

Refreshing to see people who really train and push themselves versus those who read magazines while on the exercise bike or treadmill.

 

[Stryker44]

I'm finding - as others have mentioned...eating the bulk of carbs and calories around lunch time, then working out hard after work, then a light meal thereafter before bed - is really starting to pay dividends with regard to the intensity with which I can train.

 

[CATCH17]

I'm finding - as others have mentioned...eating the bulk of carbs and calories around lunch time, then working out hard after work, then a light meal thereafter before bed - is really starting to pay dividends with regard to the intensity with which I can train.

Yeah it definetely works for me.

I've recently upped my protein by about 50 grams a day and i've been holding onto my weight slightly but I can tell im getting leaner.

I've only lost 4 lbs the last 3 weeks but I look about 8-10 lbs lighter. Could be something to do with sodium too.

 

[Stryker44]

Yeah it definetely works for me.

I've recently upped my protein by about 50 grams a day and i've been holding onto my weight slightly but I can tell im getting leaner.

I've only lost 4 lbs the last 3 weeks but I look about 8-10 lbs lighter. Could be something to do with sodium too.

That's great. I've been doing my hard cardio in the morning, then eating a high protein low calories breakfast, a high carb lunch, then my weight session.

Cutting out the second cardio session in the afternoon has really helped me focus on just lifting hard those afternoons and has also improved the quality of my workouts. I appreciate your advice on that. I feel like a different person during the weight sessions now...I can attack the workout rather than just try to survive. I've also been able to increase the weight I'm repping.

I'm at 235 now...goal is 200 and to fit into my old jeans by summer. I think I can do it without starving myself.

 

[CATCH17]

That's great. I've been doing my hard cardio in the morning, then eating a high protein low calories breakfast, a high carb lunch, then my weight session.

Cutting out the second cardio session in the afternoon has really helped me focus on just lifting hard those afternoons and has also improved the quality of my workouts. I appreciate your advice on that. I feel like a different person during the weight sessions now...I can attack the workout rather than just try to survive. I've also been able to increase the weight I'm repping.

I'm at 235 now...goal is 200 and to fit into my old jeans by summer. I think I can do it without starving myself.

Awesome man. Keep us updated. Im on that same road right now except im trying to get my body fat really low. Around 8% would be nice.

Im 202 right now plus im taller and big boned so I don't look fat at all. In fact a dude at the gym who hasn't seen me in awhile told me not to lose anymore weight.

Im still a little doughey though in my midsection but I think another 10-15 lbs should do it and then im going to start adding some mass.

 

[Stryker44]

Awesome man. Keep us updated. Im on that same road right now except im trying to get my body fat really low. Around 8% would be nice.

Im 202 right now plus im taller and big boned so I don't look fat at all. In fact a dude at the gym who hasn't seen me in awhile told me not to lose anymore weight.

Im still a little doughey though in my midsection but I think another 10-15 lbs should do it and then im going to start adding some mass.

At what point does lowering body fat become more difficult? Once below 12 percent or so?

How much of the population has 8 percent body fat I wonder...I'd guess not many people!

 

[Stryker44]

Do any of you do pullups/chin ups? Balance balls, kettlebells, resistance training? Thinking about incorporating more compound exercises into my regimen.

 

[Jenky]

Do any of you do pullups/chin ups? Balance balls, kettlebells, resistance training? Thinking about incorporating more compound exercises into my regimen.

I do wide grip pullups, deadlifts, squat and bench. So usually, one of those will be my first exercise depending on the day it is. Also I usually stretch and then do my compound exercises first. It's very important to get the form and technique down without hurting yourself. Olympic type lifts are highly technical.

Towards the end i'll do isolation work, machines & cables. So I definitely have some order to it because I don't want to give my maximum effort & exhaust myself on something that's machine oriented and geared for isolation of a specific muscle group.

 

[Stryker44]

Ok I've been stuck at 235-240 the last couple weeks. Have been able to work out harder due to eating a ton of carbs at lunch, but the weight isn't dropping. Should I cut back on the amount of pasta I'm eating at lunch? Right now I'm eating about 3/4 lbs.

 

[CATCH17]

Ok I've been stuck at 235-240 the last couple weeks. Have been able to work out harder due to eating a ton of carbs at lunch, but the weight isn't dropping. Should I cut back on the amount of pasta I'm eating at lunch? Right now I'm eating about 3/4 lbs.

Are you tracking calories? It's not the carbs its the total amount of calories. If you're not losing weight you're eating too much or you might have slightly stalled.

Give it a week and if you don't lose any weight drop your calories slightly lower.

 

[Stryker44]

Are you tracking calories? It's not the carbs its the total amount of calories. If you're not losing weight you're eating too much or you might have slightly stalled.

Give it a week and if you don't lose any weight drop your calories slightly lower.

Just looked it up....1 lb pasta with pesto sauce is 2560 calories...so 1/2 lb is 1280. Then I was having another 1/2 lb before bed. So easy to see why my weight loss has slowed, and why I've actually gained on days I don't work out. Definitely have to cut that in half and see what happens.