Support NeoGAF

[harSon]

Can anyone recommend some good healthy snacks and somewhere to purchase them. I have been snacking on walnuts and almonds but sadly have not found any without salt and all the preservatives.

It has been almost a month since I started joggings almost everyday and cutting out all soft drinks and junk food but I have only lost about ten pounds. I can already tell that my endurance while running has improved greatly but the weight loss just really is not happening as quickly as I had hoped. I fear the problem is what I have for most meals and that is not something that I can really adjust because I am home for summer and my grandmother cooks most meals and is stuck in her old ways of cooking things. I have tried to be more aware of how much I am eating but I really do not think I can fully adjust what I eat for meals until I get back to school.

Any help or input is greatly appreciated.

What's your current weight, and how much were you realistically looking to lose in a month? Most people would sacrifice children to be losing 10 pounds a month.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Isn't a half-cup dry a lot? I've always eaten a 1/4th cup dry Steel Cut, as that's the serving suggestion, and it results in a fairly hefty serving.

My mistake, I think I am talking about 1/4 cup. It looks like almost nothing as a dry measure but once it's hydrated it cooks up to quite a lot.

I'm totally on the low-carb train but from my own reading I refuse to believe oatmeal is evil and it's not something I would cut out from my diet.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Toxic?

I'll have to find some links, but diets that are both low in carbohydrate and low in fat, but very high in protein, can cause weakness, nausea, and diarrhea. It seems like you generally don't want protein intake to be any more than 30-40% of your caloric intake.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Oatmeal is awful? Most low-carb and health resources in general say it's great. Obviously it's more carbs than bacon and eggs but it is pretty low GI and it has a ton of good nutrients. If you want a cereal-type breakfast now and then it seems like the best choice possible. And even a half-cup dry cooks up to a very filling serving, you don't need to eat much oatmeal to feel full.

Even so, I try to eat it sparingly, maybe once a week.

Maybe awful is going too far. However, if your goal is to reduce carbs in your diet, starting the day with 20-40 grams of carbohydrates in the form of oatmeal doesn't seem like the best idea to me.

It's certainly better than the processed cereal stuff crammed full of sugar, and it's certainly not going to kill you, but depending on what your personal carbohydrate threshold is, that oatmeal breakfast may halt your weight loss or even cause you to put on pounds. Some people can handle more carbs than others, though, so if you like it and don't notice any problems after eating it, then it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Can anyone recommend some good healthy snacks and somewhere to purchase them. I have been snacking on walnuts and almonds but sadly have not found any without salt and all the preservatives.

It has been almost a month since I started joggings almost everyday and cutting out all soft drinks and junk food but I have only lost about ten pounds. I can already tell that my endurance while running has improved greatly but the weight loss just really is not happening as quickly as I had hoped. I fear the problem is what I have for most meals and that is not something that I can really adjust because I am home for summer and my grandmother cooks most meals and is stuck in her old ways of cooking things. I have tried to be more aware of how much I am eating but I really do not think I can fully adjust what I eat for meals until I get back to school.

Any help or input is greatly appreciated.

10 pounds in a month is pretty damn good. Was the weight loss pretty consistent, or did you lose 10 pounds in the first week and nothing since then?

Your actual weight is not always the best indicator of how much fat you are losing. With all of the jogging you're doing, you are probably putting on quite a bit of muscle in your legs, which may be one of the reasons your actual weight isn't dropping as quickly as you would like.

 

[W1SSY]

What's your current weight, and how much were you realistically looking to lose in a month? Most people would sacrifice children to be losing 10 pounds a month.

I am at a little under 245 right now. I just thought that it would come off faster with all the changes I have made but I am fine with it. In the month that I have been doing this I can already tell I am getting in beter shape and feel a lot better.

10 pounds in a month is pretty damn good. Was the weight loss pretty consistent, or did you lose 10 pounds in the first week and nothing since then?

Your actual weight is not always the best indicator of how much fat you are losing. With all of the jogging you're doing, you are probably putting on quite a bit of muscle in your legs, which may be one of the reasons your actual weight isn't dropping as quickly as you would like.

I didn't really keep track of it but it has seemed consistent. I can definitely tell that my legs are in better shape because when I started I would have trouble jogging multiple days in a row because my legs would hurt a little the day after. Recently I have had no problems with any pain and have started to jog longer distances.

 

[Zoe]

Nice work on the weight loss, but why da fuck were you running for 2-3 hours? You only need to do around 20-30 minutes (combined with general daily activity such as walking). Sounds like absolute overkill to me, even if it worked for you.

Lots of trainers will say that 20-30 minutes isn't enough unless you're doing HIIT. You need to go 30+ minutes to start tapping into the reserves.

 

[BigKaboom2]

Back when I used to eat oatmeal I'd be hungry again within half an hour. Not the case with eggs/meat/etc.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Back when I used to eat oatmeal I'd be hungry again within half an hour. Not the case with eggs/meat/etc.

Yep. While oatmeal may be low on the glycemic index, it still raises your blood sugar and causes insulin to secrete. The insulin prevents the release of fatty acids to be used energy, instead telling your body to use up the glucose in your blood stream. Unfortunately, even after that glucose is depleted, your insulin will probably stick around for a while and continue to prevent the release of fatty acids while telling your body to use glucose for energy instead, even though there isn't any glucose left. Your cells then tell your brain that they need more glucose, so you quickly become hungry again.

 

[LosDaddie]

Well, GAF, I'm finally doing it. After putting it off for too long, I'm serious about losing weight. Man, having a kid really killed the free time I would've used to work-out. :lol

Anyway, I've lost 8 lbs so far! Not much, but it's a good start, and motivation to keep going. Before I got serious, I was doing half-ass work-outs and not being good with my diet (but not horrible either). Now I run for ~20min in the mornings Mon-Fri before work, get in a solid 45min work-out Mon-Thurs after work, and I've been great with my diet.

My diet hasn't changed all that much from before, except for no more late night snacks. I still have a Cheat Day though (friday night through Saturday), to keep my sanity. Makes me really look forward to the weekend

Part of my problem, besides the half-assed workouts & bad diet, was that I worked out on a consistent basis for 10yrs beforehand. All that muscle I gained over the decade truned to fat, well not all of but you get what I'm saying. Really, it's the only downside of working out.



My goal is to lose 20 lbs more. When I reach that goal, I'll post my before/after weights and my strategy for losing the weight. I hope to hit this before Sept.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Well, GAF, I'm finally doing it. After putting it off for too long, I'm serious about losing weight. Man, having a kid really killed the free time I would've used to work-out. :lol

Anyway, I've lost 8 lbs so far! Not much, but it's a good start, and motivation to keep going. Before I got serious, I was doing half-ass work-outs and not being good with my diet (but not horrible either). Now I run for ~20min in the mornings Mon-Fri before work, get in a solid 45min work-out Mon-Thurs after work, and I've been great with my diet.

My diet hasn't changed all that much from before, except for no more late night snacks. I still have a Cheat Day though (friday night through Saturday), to keep my sanity. Makes me really look forward to the weekend

Part of my problem, besides the half-assed workouts & bad diet, was that I worked out on a consistent basis for 10yrs beforehand. All that muscle I gained over the decade truned to fat, well not all of but you get what I'm saying. Really, it's the only downside of working out.



My goal is to lose 20 lbs more. When I reach that goal, I'll post my before/after weights and my strategy for losing the weight. I hope to hit this before Sept.

*sigh*

 

[borghe]

Lots of trainers will say that 20-30 minutes isn't enough unless you're doing HIIT. You need to go 30+ minutes to start tapping into the reserves.

as someone who did tons of running last year including a number of 5Ks and a marathon... those trainers are full of shit.

first, HIIT you're looking at like 12-15 minutes tops. and frankly 15 minutes is too long. second, your "reserves" aka hitting the wall, usually doesn't happen for most people until somewhere around 60-90 minutes, mostly closer to 90 minutes. finally, there are some serious serious issues that typically arise from long distance running like that over long periods of time. I strongly suggest reading Pace by Al Sears. if you are interested in losing weight, I'm not exaggerating when I say there are probably 100 BETTER and more EFFICIENT alternatives to long distance running.

and again, this is coming from someone who put in probably over 1000 miles last year............ that book is a really sobering read.

 

[elrechazado]

I thought the fellow paleo and low carb group would find this as hilarious as I did - It's a quote from an anti "atkins" doctor, but who grudgingly admits all of the benefits of low carb living because of the overwhelming evidence, but then can't help trying to make it a negative:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/03/896012/irresponsible-doctor-says-fat.html

"When they proved that a low-carb diet decreases LDL, or bad cholesterol, while improving HDL, the good cholesterol, their detractors pointed out that the study followed patients for only six months.

When a two-year study found similar results, those in the low-fat camp still weren't convinced that eating so much animal fat wouldn't kill you in the end.

"There's no doubt that the Atkins diet will lower your cholesterol, weight and blood pressure and get rid of your diabetes, but then what?" asked Dr. Robert Rosati, the cardiologist who runs The Rice Diet Program Clinic, granddaddy of Durham's diet centers."

I was speechless when I read this bullshit. "sure, it will improve your health in every conceivable way, but THEN WHAT". REALLY?

Incidentally, it's also a good article about one of the more interesting and credible low carb physicians out there. He works at a small little institution called duke university.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I thought the fellow paleo and low carb group would find this as hilarious as I did - It's a quote from an anti "atkins" doctor, but who grudgingly admits all of the benefits of low carb living because of the overwhelming evidence, but then can't help trying to make it a negative:

http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/01/03/896012/irresponsible-doctor-says-fat.html

"When they proved that a low-carb diet decreases LDL, or bad cholesterol, while improving HDL, the good cholesterol, their detractors pointed out that the study followed patients for only six months.

When a two-year study found similar results, those in the low-fat camp still weren't convinced that eating so much animal fat wouldn't kill you in the end.

"There's no doubt that the Atkins diet will lower your cholesterol, weight and blood pressure and get rid of your diabetes, but then what?" asked Dr. Robert Rosati, the cardiologist who runs The Rice Diet Program Clinic, granddaddy of Durham's diet centers."

I was speechless when I read this bullshit. "sure, it will improve your health in every conceivable way, but THEN WHAT". REALLY?

Incidentally, it's also a good article about one of the more interesting and credible low carb physicians out there. He works at a small little institution called duke university.

Thanks for that. Absolute hilarity.

 

[ipukespiders]

All that muscle I gained over the decade truned to fat

*sigh*

sigh-ENCE!

 

[Buckethead]

Someone brought up Taubes' book on another forum so I was interested to read the comments.

I find it ironic that those most opposed to his ideas were people who enjoyed eating essentially whatever they wanted and were at least a good 20-30 pounds overweight.

That's what we done call "irony".

 

[Gary Whitta]

What I'm increasingly seeing in this kind of discussion (like the one going on over in the sugar thread) is one point of view that's backed up by scientific research and incredibly detailed explanations of how your body actually metabolizes different nutrients, and another point of view founded solely on herp-derp anecdotal stuff without anything like the same degree of scientific basis but more the product of the groundless dogma that's been drilled into people for years. People parrot the "calories-in-calories-out/low-fat/everything in moderation" dogma because it's just what's always been there, but unlike the people on the opposing side they never seem to be able to point to any actual credible evidence to support their argument.

The first time I tried low-carb a few years ago, the actual Atkins diet, I lost a ton of weight but eventually quit because I just refused to believe that what I was doing was healthy because it went against everything I'd been led to believe in the past.

 

[elrechazado]

What I'm increasingly seeing in this kind of discussion (like the one going on over in the sugar thread) is one point of view that's backed up by scientific research and incredibly detailed studies about how your body metabolizes food, and another point of view founded on herp-derp anecdotal stuff without anything like the same degree of scientific basis but more the product of the groundless dogma that's been drilled into people for years.

The first time I tried low-carb a few years ago, the actual Atkins diet, I lost a ton of weight but eventually quit because I just refused to believe that what I was doing was healthy because it went against everything I'd been led to believe in the past.

Yeah, lots of "it's just common sense" from people who you would think would be trained or open to scientific evidence. I've seen people on this forum who flip out at religious people questioning evolution on spurious grounds, and then turn around and address the science of nutrition with the same or worse faulty logic.

The powers that be have done an excellent job locking down conventional wisdom and exiling any new information. And ironically, the "new" theories are actually the shitty low fat "toxic environment" type arguments that are now so entrenched, but weren't conventional wisdom until 30 or so years ago.

 

[BertramCooper]

I was speechless when I read this bullshit. "sure, it will improve your health in every conceivable way, but THEN WHAT". REALLY?

It doesn't give you the ability to fly.

Therefore, it is a sham.

 

[ant_]

What is with you guys and your need to draw a line in the sand and basically say you are either low-carb or you are an idiot?

I've noticed this on every weight loss forum I've gone to, the keto people tend to form their own sub-group in which everyone is unhealthy besides them, despite many other diets seeing progress JUST AS MUCH as those in ketosis.

Diet wars are no good. It's about losing weight, god damn.

 

[hodgy100]

Ive recently started a diet when i realized i weigh 260lbs i have since (over about 6 weeks) lost 12lbs, just through healthier eating (less red meat, no junk food etc) I know it's coming off slowly but I'm personally happy with my progress and solong as the loss continues im happy no matter the rate of loss. I'm hoping to eventually get to 200lbs

 

[elrechazado]

What is with you guys and your need to draw a line in the sand and basically say you are either low-carb or you are an idiot?

I've noticed this on every weight loss forum I've gone to, the keto people tend to form their own sub-group in which everyone is unhealthy besides them, despite many other diets seeing progress JUST AS MUCH as those in ketosis.

Diet wars are no good. It's about losing weight, god damn.

Science? And when you are losing weight and becoming measurably more healthy by every medical metric that exists, and people say shit like "lol atkins? that guy died of a heart attack, eating all bacon will kill u, sugar is fine lolol" it gets old after a while. I haven't seen many people in this thread call anyone else in this thread an idiot, and if it has happened, it's been "lol ur an idiot who believes a youtube video" type comments.

/shrug

 

[FallingEdge]

Diet wars are no good. It's about losing fat, god damn.

Fixed

This thread isn't nearly as bad as the other ones I have seen on various boards but I do know what you are trying to say. Everyone works differently and the key is finding something that works for you. I've said this before, but try keto or IF or different styles until you find one that you are comfortable with and can continue to do. I've read forums about individuals who just worry about macros and eat McDonalds and ice cream as long as it fit within their daily diet. Their cholesterol and bf% has lowered just as much as the peeps who go keto.

Multiple ways to get to your final goal.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

What is with you guys and your need to draw a line in the sand and basically say you are either low-carb or you are an idiot?

I've noticed this on every weight loss forum I've gone to, the keto people tend to form their own sub-group in which everyone is unhealthy besides them, despite many other diets seeing progress JUST AS MUCH as those in ketosis.

Diet wars are no good. It's about losing weight, god damn.

Show me evidence where an obese, or even just overweight, person has lost significant amounts of fat and kept it off without greatly reducing carbohydrate intake.

Anyway, I'm not drawing any lines in the sand. Not everyone needs to go super low-carb to lose weight, but there are plenty of people out there, like myself, who put on fat even when only consuming relatively small amounts of carbohydrate (100g or so).

Everyone's body is different and people have different tolerance levels, but a safe bet to lose weight is to drastically decrease your carbohydrate intake. Gradually increase carbs from there to see what your individual tolerance level is.

 

[Schlep]

Ive recently started a diet when i realized i weigh 260lbs i have since (over about 6 weeks) lost 12lbs, just through healthier eating (less red meat, no junk food etc) I know it's coming off slowly but I'm personally happy with my progress and solong as the loss continues im happy no matter the rate of loss. I'm hoping to eventually get to 200lbs

There are very few people in this thread advocating full on ketosis. Most simply say to keep carbohydrate under 100g (actual threshold varies from person to person). If you make that change, your fat loss will accelerate.

 

[ant_]

Show me evidence where an obese, or even just overweight, person has lost significant amounts of fat and kept it off without greatly reducing carbohydrate intake.

Anyway, I'm not drawing any lines in the sand. Not everyone needs to go super low-carb to lose weight, but there are plenty of people out there, like myself, who put on fat even when only consuming relatively small amounts of carbohydrate (100g or so).

Everyone's body is different and people have different tolerance levels, but a safe bet to lose weight is to drastically decrease your carbohydrate intake. Gradually increase carbs from there to see what your individual tolerance level is.

Of course they are reducing carbohydrate intake, the majority of the (modern) American diet is 99% carbohydrates. But you guys wish to start an inquisition against all carbohydrates, which is ridiculous.

Fats, proteins - they are super important. You CAN eat carbohydrates and lose weight - and why not? It's a delicious food group.

 

[Simplet]

I was wondering what you guys were thinking about milk. Do you still drink it? I drink tons of milk, especially when I work out. I'm guessing having it when I work out is ok but bad the rest of the time?

The more I think about it the more I believe I should give up any idea of having a meal called "breakfast" on a low-carb diet. It's just awkward. I already went from the french breackfast of bread and pastries to the more anglo one with eggs and meat but it still feels weird and it's hard to eat vegetables during breackfast.

 

[borghe]

Show me evidence where an obese, or even just overweight, person has lost significant amounts of fat and kept it off without greatly reducing carbohydrate intake.

As I posted earlier, all of my 60lbs came off without paying any real attention in particular to carbs. I can tell you that I was focusing in on around 160g of protein AND low fat. So realistically I was probably between 150-300g of carbs a day depending on the day. Of course I also worked out etc. You are right in that our bodies are all different and handle carbs differently. However this thread is VERY intimidating to someone who doesn't want/need to work with a low carb diet, and that sucks for what is supposed to be a catch all weight loss thread. I've been in agreement for a year now that there should be separate nutrition threads for the various diets out there and this should remain just an 'attaboy' thread with pics. Link the nutrition threads in the first post, etc. I've seen people in this thread post results with a non-low carb diet and get jumped on because they "could do better by eliminating those carbs". People come to this thread for support in the effort they're making, not to be badgered into taking on a nutrition plan they may or may not want to do.

And I'm not ripping anyone on these last few pages. Honestly. Just that it IS an intimidating thread to participate in if you don't do low carb.

FWIW the fitness thread is VERY similar in this respect. If you aren't doing standard 3x8 maximum numbers western strength training in that thread and posting 1RM deadlift weights, things like bodyweight and calisthenics are largely mosquito noise. However at least in that thread you'll just largely be ignored. In this thread there is a much greater tendency to bring up the carb issue from seemingly out of nowhere from post to post if it's not the focus already.

Just my two cents. Definitely not meaning to step on anyone's toes.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Yeah I've been thinking about adding a glass of whole milk to my breakfast, wonder what others thought of that idea.

 

[elrechazado]

I don't drink milk personally, but I'm closer to ketogenic than most people around here. If you like milk and it helps you keep up the lifestyle you want, then a glass won't kill you, and there's nice fat in that thar milk.

Just my two cents. Definitely not meaning to step on anyone's toes.

Nobody should feel like they can't share their methods, especially when successful like yours. We're all in this thread presumably because we're trying or have tried or will try to lose weight, go team.

 

[fadetoblack]

What is with you guys and your need to draw a line in the sand and basically say you are either low-carb or you are an idiot?

I've noticed this on every weight loss forum I've gone to, the keto people tend to form their own sub-group in which everyone is unhealthy besides them, despite many other diets seeing progress JUST AS MUCH as those in ketosis.

Diet wars are no good. It's about losing weight, god damn.

I've never seen anyone in this thread call anyone stupid or the like. In fact, I explicitly remember people saying "whatever works for you" on multiple occasions. Is this a low-carb dominated thread? Yeah, of course. But I don't think its fair to paint the whole group like that. I think that as far as NeoGaf goes, this is one of those threads that we all tend to be very encouraging of one another, so I'm not sure if any of what you said is fair.

Yeah I've been thinking about adding a glass of whole milk to my breakfast, wonder what others thought of that idea.

What is it about the milk that makes you wonder if its a good idea?

I think you should absolutely add the milk to your diet. For the absolute minute amount of sugar that's in milk in the form of lactose, the health benefits of milk are tremendous. I've always had milk in my diet and I'm currently down 30lbs since I started in March. Plus, whole milk is delicious.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Of course they are reducing carbohydrate intake, the majority of the (modern) American diet is 99% carbohydrates. But you guys wish to start an inquisition against all carbohydrates, which is ridiculous.

Fats, proteins - they are super important. You CAN eat carbohydrates and lose weight - and why not? It's a delicious food group.

Straw man, look it up. Who's starting the inquisition?

Like I said earlier, the amount of carbohydrates a person can eat and still lose or maintain weight varies greatly from person to person. One thing is clear, though: in order to lose fat, your body needs to use fatty acids for energy. In order to do that, you need to get your insulin under control. An easy way to do that is to reduce carbohydrate consumption.

 

[Davidion]

I don't drink milk personally, but I'm closer to ketogenic than most people around here. If you like milk and it helps you keep up the lifestyle you want, then a glass won't kill you, and there's nice fat in that thar milk.

I wish I wasn't lactose intolerant so that milk doesn't cost me $5 for a half gallon.

 

[Schlep]

Yeah I've been thinking about adding a glass of whole milk to my breakfast, wonder what others thought of that idea.

I drink a cup every morning for breakfast. Two eggs cooked in butter, buttered toast, and a glass of milk. After that, I'm not hungry for at least 5 hours, sometimes 6 or 7.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Yeah I've been thinking about adding a glass of whole milk to my breakfast, wonder what others thought of that idea.

1 cup (244g) is 13g of carbohydrate in the form of the sugar lactose. Milk is also a good source of fat and protein (8g of each per cup), though. If your body can handle the carbs and still lose weight at a good pace, I'd go for it. I love milk, but I completely avoid it now and only use a bit of half-and-half in my coffee or in cooking on occasion.

 

[Simplet]

I don't drink milk personally, but I'm closer to ketogenic than most people around here. If you like milk and it helps you keep up the lifestyle you want, then a glass won't kill you, and there's nice fat in that thar milk.

Nobody should feel like they can't share their methods, especially when successful like yours. We're all in this thread presumably because we're trying or have tried or will try to lose weight, go team.

Right. Problem is that I drank 2 liters of milk today, that alone is putting me at 120g of sugar for the day. I just like to drink too much, which is usually not a problem since I only drink water and milk. But milk is the only thing that I feel "right" drinking during breakfast, and I took a lot of it again during my work-out. That's why I feel I should probably renounce eating breackfast entirely.

 

[ant_]

Straw man, look it up. Who's starting the inquisition?

Like I said earlier, the amount of carbohydrates a person can eat and still lose or maintain weight varies greatly from person to person. One thing is clear, though: in order to lose fat, your body needs to use fatty acids for energy. In order to do that, you need to get your insulin under control. An easy way to do that is to reduce carbohydrate consumption.

What do you mean by "reduce carbohydrate consumption"? Is there some "set level" where you body reads the amount of carbs, and starts putting on fat instead of burning it?

You can eat as much carbs as you want as long as you meet your total macro requirements. As long as I eat sufficient fats/proteins for the day, I can fill up the rest with carbs as long as I stay in a caloric deficit (assuming I'm trying to lose weight). And *gasp* I said it. Calories. I'm sure you're going to say, " a calorie is not just a calorie!!!!! " And it's probably true in some cases. But ALL diets act on a caloric deficit. Keto, low-fat, intermittent fasting, etc. That's how losing weight works.

Since you are probably going to require studies, here's one

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046

(Comparing two dieting groups - one ketogenic, one not)

And here's an entire write up - http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?152

Note - I acknowledge that low-carb works. Personally, I enjoy my fruit and milk

 

[Deleted member 17706]

As I posted earlier, all of my 60lbs came off without paying any real attention in particular to carbs. I can tell you that I was focusing in on around 160g of protein AND low fat. So realistically I was probably between 150-300g of carbs a day depending on the day. Of course I also worked out etc. You are right in that our bodies are all different and handle carbs differently. However this thread is VERY intimidating to someone who doesn't want/need to work with a low carb diet, and that sucks for what is supposed to be a catch all weight loss thread. I've been in agreement for a year now that there should be separate nutrition threads for the various diets out there and this should remain just an 'attaboy' thread with pics. Link the nutrition threads in the first post, etc. I've seen people in this thread post results with a non-low carb diet and get jumped on because they "could do better by eliminating those carbs". People come to this thread for support in the effort they're making, not to be badgered into taking on a nutrition plan they may or may not want to do.

And I'm not ripping anyone on these last few pages. Honestly. Just that it IS an intimidating thread to participate in if you don't do low carb.

FWIW the fitness thread is VERY similar in this respect. If you aren't doing standard 3x8 maximum numbers western strength training in that thread and posting 1RM deadlift weights, things like bodyweight and calisthenics are largely mosquito noise. However at least in that thread you'll just largely be ignored. In this thread there is a much greater tendency to bring up the carb issue from seemingly out of nowhere from post to post if it's not the focus already.

Just my two cents. Definitely not meaning to step on anyone's toes.

I think it really comes down to the low-carb side being backed by scientific data and the pro-carb(?) side being backed by "just makes sense" and vague anecdotes of which the truth and accuracy cannot be verified.

Carbohydrates play a large role in controlling insulin secretion. Insulin plays a massive role in deciding whether or not we can use fat for energy and whether or not we store in our fatty tissue. Control the carbs to control the insulin and you've got a surefire way to lose weight.

Some people can take in lots of carbs and still lose weight. Just cutting out the soda and sugary beverages may be enough for many people. We're all different and it's up to the individual to find their threshold. However, I think it's important that people know the science behind what controls our weight gain/weight loss. Throwing out bullshit like "the first law of thermodynamics" and "balanced diet" or "use moderation!" helps no one.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

What do you mean by "reduce carbohydrate consumption"? Is there some "set level" where you body reads the amount of carbs, and starts putting on fat instead of burning it?

Carbohydrates, especially the processed kind, quickly raise blood sugar which causes the hormone insulin to secrete. Insulin prevents your body from releasing fatty acid to be used for energy and instead tells the body to burn the glucose from the carbohydrates you consumed. Insulin also actively works to store fat as triglycerides. The combined effect makes you fatter. Even after the glucose is gone, insulin will still deny your body the use of fatty acids for energy, which in turn makes you hungry again.

You can eat as much carbs as you want as long as you meet your total macro requirements. As long as I eat sufficient fats/proteins for the day, I can fill up the rest with carbs as long as I stay in a caloric deficit (assuming I'm trying to lose weight). And *gasp* I said it. Calories. I'm sure you're going to say, " a calorie is not just a calorie!!!!! " And it's probably true in some cases. But ALL diets act on a caloric deficit. Keto, low-fat, intermittent fasting, etc. That's how losing weight works.

Note - I acknowledge that low-carb works. Personally, I enjoy my fruit and milk

a post of yours from earlier:

Anyone here use Intermittent fasting? I'm starting in about a week. Pretty excited, having 3 meals and snacks makes me hungry all day. Hopefully Intermittent fasting will help with this - and allow me to gain muscle @ the same time.

Hrmm, I wonder why you're hungry all day.

 

[ant_]

Carbohydrates, especially the processed kind, quickly raise blood sugar which causes the hormone insulin to secrete. Insulin prevents your body from releasing fatty acid to be used for energy and instead tells the body to burn the glucose from the carbohydrates you consumed. Insulin also actively works to store fat as triglycerides. The combined effect makes you fatter. Even after the glucose is gone, insulin will still deny your body the use of fatty acids for energy, which in turn makes you hungry again.



a post of yours from earlier:



Hrmm, I wonder why you're hungry all day.

LOL, what? If I'm hungry all day because of my diet than I guess it's due to protein and fats because that is the majority of my diet. My carbs include bread, brown rice, fruit, and milk. Probably in total about ~400-500 calories in my 1800 caloric requirement. Yep, that's making me hungry. I linked the study, and a huge discussion on keto and how other diets work just as well (with all of its claims backed up by studies).

I want to do intermittent fasting because I prefer eating huge meals, and there are studies showing that a fasting period can be beneficial to fat-loss.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

LOL, what? If I'm hungry all day because of my diet than I guess it's due to protein and fats because that is the majority of my diet. My carbs include bread, brown rice, fruit, and milk. Probably in total about ~400-500 calories in my 1800 caloric requirement. Yep, that's making me hungry. I linked the study, and a huge discussion on keto and how other diets work just as well (with all of its claims backed up by studies).

I want to do intermittent fasting because I prefer eating huge meals, and there are studies showing that a fasting period can be beneficial to fat-loss.

You're hungry because your cells are asking for more energy. Whether that is because you simply aren't getting enough calories total, or because your insulin is preventing your cells from using fatty acids, I don't know. 400-500 calories from carbs means you are consuming 100g+. Perhaps your body can't tolerate that much? I can't be sure, obviously, but I know that my body can't. I quickly put on weight and feel hungry all the time when I consume that much carbohydrate.

The whole caloric deficit logic is flawed and is completely ignoring the science behind how your body regulates fat and energy allocation. I think a good rule is that, if you feel hungry all the time, your diet isn't good for you.

 

[Schlep]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046

You must have glossed over the part of the results where the group on the moderate carb diet lost, on average, half a kilogram more of lean mass than the low carb group. That's an additional one pound of lean mass lost in six weeks.

 

[ant_]

You're hungry because your cells are asking for more energy. Whether that is because you simply aren't getting enough calories total, or because your insulin is preventing your cells from using fatty acids, I don't know. 400-500 calories from carbs means you are consuming 100g+. Perhaps your body can't tolerate that much? I can't be sure, obviously, but I know that my body can't. I quickly put on weight and feel hungry all the time when I consume that much carbohydrate.

The whole caloric deficit logic is flawed and is completely ignoring the science behind how your body regulates fat and energy allocation. I think a good rule is that, if you feel hungry all the time, your diet isn't good for you.

Alright, I'm done here. I'll be enjoying my carbs
You say I'm ignoring the studies when I'm not. I acknowledge that low-carb works. You are ignoring the studies that I posted that say that diets other than low-carb work as well. But I don't want this to turn into a "battle of scientific studies." I've made my points. Done arguing on the internet.

You must have glossed over the part of the results where the group on the moderate carb diet lost, on average, half a kilogram more of lean mass than the low carb group. That's an additional one pound of lean mass lost in six weeks.

I'm not arguing whether keto works or not. I know it works. I'm arguing against the low-carb defense group where it's either "our way or the highway."

Like someone earlier said, it's detracting from what this thread should be - about losing fat in a way that works for the individual.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Tonight will be whole roast chicken basted with butter! I feel like Robert Baratheon! (only less fat)

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Alright, I'm done here. I'll be enjoying my carbs
You say I'm ignoring the studies when I'm not. I acknowledge that low-carb works. You are ignoring the studies that I posted that say that diets other than low-carb work as well. But I don't want this to turn into a "battle of scientific studies." I've made my points. Done arguing on the internet.




I'm not arguing whether keto works or not. I know it works. I'm arguing against the low-carb defense group where it's either "our way or the highway."

Like someone earlier said, it's detracting from what this thread should be - about losing fat in a way that works for the individual.

I'm not ignoring the studies at all. I've been devouring information on this stuff for the last few weeks.

As you acknowledge, low-carb diets work. Other diets may work, too. It really depends on the person.

You can enjoy your carbs all you want, and I'm glad it seems to be working for you (although it sure must suck to be hungry all the time), but you're wrong in focusing specifically on caloric intake and ignoring the biology behind weight gain/loss.

 

[Srsly]

What do you mean by "reduce carbohydrate consumption"? Is there some "set level" where you body reads the amount of carbs, and starts putting on fat instead of burning it?

You can eat as much carbs as you want as long as you meet your total macro requirements. As long as I eat sufficient fats/proteins for the day, I can fill up the rest with carbs as long as I stay in a caloric deficit (assuming I'm trying to lose weight). And *gasp* I said it. Calories. I'm sure you're going to say, " a calorie is not just a calorie!!!!! " And it's probably true in some cases. But ALL diets act on a caloric deficit. Keto, low-fat, intermittent fasting, etc. That's how losing weight works.

Since you are probably going to require studies, here's one

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046

(Comparing two dieting groups - one ketogenic, one not)

And here's an entire write up - http://www.maxcondition.com/page.php?152

Note - I acknowledge that low-carb works. Personally, I enjoy my fruit and milk

Ketosis has a well-demonstrated hunger-blunting effect. The study you linked to involved people whose diets were strictly controlled, in other words, hospitalized/some kind of institutionalization, so it didn't matter if people were hungry or not. That isn't applicable to the real world. I can link studies where people on low carbohydrate diets at ad libitum, ate more and lost more fat mass than other diets.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/87/1/44.full.pdf

"Results: Ad libitum energy intakes were lower with the LC diet than
with the MC diet [P
0.02; SE of the difference (SED): 0.27] at 7.25
and 7.95 MJ/d, respectively. Over the 4-wk period, hunger was
significantly lower (P
0.014; SED: 1.76) and weight loss was
significantly greater (P
0.006; SED: 0.62) with the LC diet (6.34
kg) than with the MC diet (4.35 kg). The LC diet induced ketosis with
mean 3-hydroxybutyrate concentrations of 1.52 mmol/L in plasma
(P
0.036 from baseline; SED: 0.62) and 2.99 mmol/L in urine (P
 0.001 from baseline; SED: 0.36)"

 

[teh_pwn]

Show me evidence where an obese, or even just overweight, person has lost significant amounts of fat and kept it off without greatly reducing carbohydrate intake.

Anyway, I'm not drawing any lines in the sand. Not everyone needs to go super low-carb to lose weight, but there are plenty of people out there, like myself, who put on fat even when only consuming relatively small amounts of carbohydrate (100g or so).

Everyone's body is different and people have different tolerance levels, but a safe bet to lose weight is to drastically decrease your carbohydrate intake. Gradually increase carbs from there to see what your individual tolerance level is.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity.html

Reducing carbs works for tons of people. But you can consume non-fructose starches and lose weight extremely effectively if you remove all taste.

 

[jufonuk]

I need to start losing weight... not really into the Gym, maybe swimming

job is sedentry also...trying to walk a lot more.

plus odd hours (nights,evenings,weekends and early start, shift schedule is chaotic)

gotta reduce my portions and cut out any crap that I occasionally frequently eat IE I don't do it everyday but like say two or three times a month, but don't eat McDonalds urrrrrrgh

I dont drink fizzy Drinks or have beer, smoke or do drugs but by god Pizza/Kebabs/burritos and Chinese food is my kryptonite..

any tips for a gymaphobe

 

[ipukespiders]

It took an argument, a lot of "oh bullshit", but I actually got my brother started reading WWGF last night and also sent him a few links/vids. He had previously watched "fathead" to which he replied "well, that's his opinion" so I'm not sure if he'll get it or not. Is is important to me, as he and my mom are both recently diagnosed type 2 diabetic, and both obese.

Actually converted my mom to low carb fairly easily. She's 73, and upon explaining the lifestyle, she said that's how her family ate when she was a growing up. Undoing 50 years of lies isn't easy though.

I need to start losing weight... not really into the Gym, maybe swimming

1. Low carb, high fat, medium protein (my belief and the general consenses here)

2. But you may have luck just going on a general calorie deficit of say 500 cals per day.

Pick whichever you like.
There guys, no arguing

 

[Deleted member 17706]

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity.html

Reducing carbs works for tons of people. But you can consume non-fructose starches and lose weight extremely effectively if you remove all taste.

It's a machine that dispenses bland liquid food through a straw, at the push of a button. They don't give any information on the composition of the liquid diet, beyond remarking that "carbohydrate supplied 50 per cent of the calories, protein 20 per cent and fat 30 per cent. the formula contained vitamins and minerals in amount adequate for daily maintenance."

Volunteers were given access to the machine and allowed to consume as much of the liquid diet as they wanted, but no other food. Since they were in a hospital setting, the investigators could be confident that the volunteers ate nothing else.

The first thing they report is what happened when they fed two lean people using the machine, for 16 or 9 days. Both of them maintained their typical calorie intake (~3,075 and ~4,430 kcal per day) and maintained a very stable weight during this period.

Next, the investigators did the same experiment using two "grossly obese" volunteers. Again, they were asked to "obtain food from the machine whenever hungry." Over the course of the first 18 days, the first (male) volunteer consumed a meager 275 calories per day. The second (female) volunteer consumed a ridiculously low 144 calories per day over the course of 12 days, losing 23 pounds. Without showing data, the investigators remarked that an additional three obese volunteers "showed a similar inhibition of calorie intake when fed by machine."

The first volunteer continued eating bland food from the machine for a total of 70 days, losing approximately 70 pounds. After that, he was sent home with the formula and instructed to drink 400 calories of it per day, which he did for an additional 185 days, after which his total weight loss was 200 lbs. The investigators remarked that "during all this time weight was steadily lost and the patient never complained of hunger or gastrointestinal discomfort." This is truly a starvation-level calorie intake, and to eat it continually for 255 days without hunger suggests that something rather interesting was happening in this man's body.

This machine-feeding regimen was nearly as close as one can get to a diet with no rewarding properties whatsoever. Although it contained carbohydrate and fat, it did not contain any flavor or texture to associate them with, and thus the reward value of the diet was minimized. As one would expect if food reward influences the body fat setpoint, lean volunteers maintained starting weight and a normal calorie intake, while their obese counterparts rapidly lost a massive amount of fat and reduced calorie intake dramatically without hunger. This suggests that obesity is not entirely due to a "broken" metabolism (although that may still contribute), but also at least in part to a heightened sensitivity to food reward in susceptible people. This also implies that obesity may not be a disorder, but rather a normal response to the prevailing dietary environment in affluent nations.

Extremely interesting, but the grossly obese fellow who lost 70 pounds over 70 days still only consumed around 34g of carbs per day (50% of 275/4). He then bumped that up to 50g (50% of 400/4) a day, losing a combined total of 200lbs. Not quite ketogenic, but still very low-carb.

It sounds insane that subjects did not experience any hunger on that kind of starvation-level caloric intake. This is the first of I've seen of this method. Do you know if any similar tests have been performed since then? It's interesting to see just how much "reward factor" comes into play.