No Carb Diet

El_Dangeroso

Tara Le d'Arion wrote: »

By spinning do you mean cycling on machines? Not a great way to lose weight imo.
She would be a rare case, I know of no 'obese' person that would eat a macrobiotic diet. Metabolism will come into play for everybody but it is a simple energy in/energy out formula with each persons chemistry affecting it to some degree.

Bread may taste good but do people actually get addicted to it?

First point agreed, but most people are told all they need to do to lose weight is exercise and eat healthy and that's not really the full picture.

The case I cited is not really as rare as you'd think. Let me guess, you're a man, and as such is blessed with a fantastic metabolism and as such have never been obese. Am I right? :P

Why do you think that middle aged women suddenly put on weight even though they haven't changed their eating habits? It's because the issue is far more complex that the simple 'eat less move more' theories espoused by government bodies. Weight regulation involves many hormones, leptin, cortisol, thyroxine, triiodothyronine, insulin, ghrelin, cholecystokinin, norepinephrine, incretin to name a few.. wow that's a mouthful .

So I plan my diet around things that don't upset that balance of hormones. So no soy or grains for me..

Wheat is addictive for some people the same way that alcohol is addictive for some people, no one ever says 'oh I could never give up broccoli.'

neddas

neddas wrote: »

Why did you eat something everyday if you have no taste for it? Bizarre.

Oh, I started wearing my t-shirt backwards last summer and I lost weight. What's your point exactly?

Did anyone lose a sarcastic ****?

Tar.Aldarion

neddas wrote: »

The case I cited is not really as rare as you'd think. Let me guess, you're a man, and as such is blessed with a fantastic metabolism and as such have never been obese. Am I right? :P

Maybe. >_>

Why do you think that middle aged women suddenly put on weight even though they haven't changed their eating habits? It's because the issue is far more complex that the simple 'eat less move more' theories espoused by government bodies. Weight regulation involves many hormones, leptin, cortisol, thyroxine, triiodothyronine, insulin, ghrelin, cholecystokinin, norepinephrine, incretin to name a few.. wow that's a mouthful .

So I plan my diet around things that don't upset that balance of hormones. So no soy or grains for me..

Wheat is addictive for some people the same way that alcohol is addictive for some people, no one ever says 'oh I could never give up broccoli.'

People's chemistry changes as they get older, as does their metabolism and a lot of things, I agree that they may put on more weight with the same food but that makes sense, their body has stopped growing, brain cells etc are no longer being reproduced, they are dying every day. The amount of energy they need to sustain themsevels is decreasing past the peak. They need to simply go for walks and so on every day to keep off any weight that might be gained imo. It's obvious that their chemistry will be changing.
As for broccoli, I know one person that would never stop eating it, but it is horrible. Now spinach, that's something I couldn't quit. :-p

KatCookie

Can anyone give me a link to a website that actually has a good low/no carb diet?
and please dont say Atkins..

El_Dangeroso

Oh if only it were that simple, the diet industry wouldn't rake in billions a year. You see loads of overweight middle-aged women out on the road, walking as if their life depended on it, the precedence for weight goes as such:

Hormones
Genetics
Age
Calories
Exercise
Stress

So If you eat things things that throw your hormones out of balance, or you're going through a time in your life where hormones naturally change (puberty, menopause) then weight changes will happen. But you can counteract this by following a low carb diet.

El_Dangeroso

KatCookie wrote: »

Can anyone give me a link to a website that actually has a good low/no carb diet?
and please dont say Atkins..

www.proteinpower.com

Dr. Michael Eades is excellent and his blog makes for fascinating reading.

Other science-y sites include
http://weightoftheevidence.blogspot.com/
http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com/

and if you have a lot of time and a degree in biochemistry

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/

EileenG

cozmik wrote: »

Whatever you say EileenG :rolleyes:



From the article





Denial is a very powerful force. Sadly, in denial, we usual end up only hurting ourselves.


Take care

cozmik

If I get prostate cancer, I will apologise on bended knee to you.

Tar.Aldarion

I already meantioned that the first five can affect your weight, stress can too and insulin resistance. If you exercise during menopause you are doing the best you can do. If you do not, things are worse, you gain more weight. As far as i know, the way menopause works is such that all foods: carbohydratess, proteins and fats are converted into fat cells due to low levels of estrogen. A low carb diet doesn't counteract it. By walking and so on every day women limit the weight gain and a pound or two a year will not be much if they can manage it. If they are having problems there are prescriptions to help them.

cozmik

EileenG wrote: »

If I get prostate cancer, I will apologise on bended knee to you.

C'mon, Eileen! No need to get sarky... I may disagree with much of what you write, but I'd still like to be able to read it without cringing.

cheers

cozmik

g'em

The attitudes of some posters on this thread is really quite silly.

neddas, frankly you're beginning to sound like a low-carb nazi. Some peer-reviewed scientifically recognised journal artciles would go a long way towards giving you some credibility here. And regurgitating what Dr. So-and-so says about studies X, Y and Z on a blog site don't count. I have a Masters in Biology and I can tell you here and now that a lot or what you've been touting as "fact" is highly questionable. You've lost weight by low carbing and that's fantastic, but ram-roading your opinions down other people's throats won't endear anyone towards following in your footsteps.

And what's with all this cancer scaremongering?! Jeebus lads, these studies are done using extreme diets, you can't take their results and conclude the wild innacuracies floating around here. Besides which, ALL the links provided thus far lead to second-hand information which immediately dents their credibility.

Please, everyone, drop the sarcasm, it does little to lend weight to your argument (*glances at neddas*), the patronising (*here's looking at you Eileen and cozmik*) and the snotty jibes (*Moonbaby, please give it a rest*).

I'm not in work and so don't have access to all my journals, but science aside, here's my very brief personal take on things; I was at my thinnest when I was low-carbing. However I was also miserable, I was lethargic and my sport suffered. When you're competing in a strength sport at national level you can't afford to be chronically low in energy. At my biggest I ate a lot of porcessed junk, no surprises there. These days I eat a balanced diet with some, but not loads of, complex carbs and wholemeal grains. My weight is stable as is my energy. There is credence to the argument that people tolerate carbs differently at a genetic level so what works for one may not necessarily work for the other.

Please don't ridicule other people's ways of living - we're all just trying to do what's best for ourselves.

KatCookie

Thats what i kinda wanted to say.. but not being a poster in the Nutrition forum.. i didnt think it my place...
nicely said i must say.

dr.bollocko

g'em wrote: »

The attitudes of some posters on this thread is really quite silly.

neddas, frankly you're beginning to sound like a low-carb nazi.

To be perfectly honest, for a mod of long standing to post something like that about another poster is completely and totally not on in any way whatsoever.

On a fundamental level, that amounts to argument belittling and personal abuse.
Essentially I would view it as hiding behind a post count to belittle a poster making valid points to maintain a status quo. To attack a poster for their argument and offer relevant counter argument is one thing, but to go one step further and incorporate "nazi" into an argument you have not participated in and are not arguing against is just plain wrong. And for somebody with a masters in biology to say so without a relevant citation to a contrary argument is just plain lazy and self-serving.

El_Dangeroso

g'em wrote: »

The attitudes of some posters on this thread is really quite silly.

neddas, frankly you're beginning to sound like a low-carb nazi. Some peer-reviewed scientifically recognised journal artciles would go a long way towards giving you some credibility here. And regurgitating what Dr. So-and-so says about studies X, Y and Z on a blog site don't count. I have a Masters in Biology and I can tell you here and now that a lot or what you've been touting as "fact" is highly questionable. You've lost weight by low carbing and that's fantastic, but ram-roading your opinions down other people's throats won't endear anyone towards following in your footsteps.

Last time I checked this was a low carb thread, I'm not forcing anyone to read it so how am I ram-roading my opinions down anyone's throat? What 'facts' did I list that are highly questionable? It's a shame that you didn't point them out because then I could have defended them, but as it stands, it's a vague accusation that can't be defended.

Low-carb Nazi, that's quite personal coming from a moderator.

g'em wrote: »

And what's with all this cancer scaremongering?! Jeebus lads, these studies are done using extreme diets, you can't take their results and conclude the wild innacuracies floating around here. Besides which, ALL the links provided thus far lead to second-hand information which immediately dents their credibility.

Please, everyone, drop the sarcasm, it does little to lend weight to your argument (*glances at neddas*), the patronising (*here's looking at you Eileen and cozmik*) and the snotty jibes (*Moonbaby, please give it a rest*).

I'm not in work and so don't have access to all my journals, but science aside, here's my very brief personal take on things; I was at my thinnest when I was low-carbing. However I was also miserable, I was lethargic and my sport suffered. When you're competing in a strength sport at national level you can't afford to be chronically low in energy. At my biggest I ate a lot of porcessed junk, no surprises there. These days I eat a balanced diet with some, but not loads of, complex carbs and wholemeal grains. My weight is stable as is my energy. There is credence to the argument that people tolerate carbs differently at a genetic level so what works for one may not necessarily work for the other.

Please don't ridicule other people's ways of living - we're all just trying to do what's best for ourselves.

I think we came to the conclusion that different people have different tolerance levels of carbs by ourselves, check about 5 posts up..

OK, so the way you eat must be healthy because that is what correlates with your experience? I want to debate the hard science of this subject not some wishy washy personal anecdote.

rubadub

neddas wrote: »

Why do you think that middle aged women suddenly put on weight even though they haven't changed their eating habits?

That is exactly what should happen, for men too. You have to adjust your fuel intake to match your current metabolism. If you change from a jeep to a mini you do not put the same petrol in each week. If you petrol tank is overflowing you know to put in less next week, if your gut is overflowing your belt you know you are eating more than you have to. People value efficiency in cars yet get upset when their own body improves its fuel efficiency.

I could similarly ask "why did the teenage girl suddenly lose a lot of weight even though she hasn't changed her eating habits since she was 5". In her case the metabolism increased and she didn't change accordingly.

There was a rugby player posting in the fitness forum who had done a lot of weight training and was ignorant of the fact that muscle would increase metabolism. He had stopped training and had gotten big, I suspect he was eating the same amount now as he was during training, pro athletes can be eating 8000kcal a day and get away with it. This is where the myth of muscle turning into fat comes from, pro athletes or bodybuilders give up the training, lose muscle but still eat the same amount, of course they get fat!

Most people are not active enough, and lose muscle mass every year from their 20's onwards. An inactive 10stone woman at 20 will have a lot more muscle than she would at 50 and 10 stone, the fat will take up the weight of the muscle lost. Muscle needs more calories to sustain it than fat, so metabolism is lowered, and a host of other things will effect it too as mentioned. There is no point moaning or being in disbelief about putting on weight, if you are putting on weight 99% of the time you are taking in more fuel than your body needs at that time, so just deal with it, take in less fuel accordingly, just like you would with a new car.

A lot of people just do not calculate portions right at all, you get people blaming medication and stress etc, I imagine if this was such a high factor for weight increase then people studying animal husbandry would be stressing out cows to get a better meat yield per kg of feed given to them. And possibly given medication to slow their metabolism if it was so effective.

Tar.Aldarion

Good post G'em(even in Dr. Bollocko stoically defends his friend and the jews), but you didn't give out to me.
And a nice post from you rubadub, *raises hat*.

g'em

I wasn't trying to personally insult someone, simply say that some views were beginning to be given quite forcefully and that everyone would be well served by taking a step away from their computers, take a deep breath and quit sniping at each other (neddas, for a case in point see post #61 - was there really any reason to be so flippant? It didn't give Moonbaby the right to retort the way they did, but you were trolling). I frequently get called a Fitness nazi and it's water off a ducks' back, perhaps other people take the term more personally than I do.

Debating is one thing, ridiculing other people's points simply because you don't agree with them is something else. So please, everyone, keep it civil. And dr. bollocko, if you have a problem with the way I moderate Feedback or the Help Desk are the places to discuss it, not here. I'm not hiding behind anything, it's simply don't have the time at the moment to go through each post point by point. There's no infracting/ banning going on, but posts on this thread have been reported and I'm simply asking that people keep their tempers in check.

El_Dangeroso

g'em wrote: »

I wasn't trying to personally insult someone, simply say that some views were beginning to be given quite forcefully and that everyone would be well served by taking a step away from their computers, take a deep breath and quit sniping at each other (neddas, for a case in point see post #61 - was there really any reason to be so flippant? It didn't give Moonbaby the right to retort the way they did, but you were trolling). I frequently get called a Fitness nazi and it's water off a ducks' back, perhaps other people take the term more personally than I do.

Debating is one thing, ridiculing other people's points simply because you don't agree with them is something else. So please, everyone, keep it civil. And dr. bollocko, if you have a problem with the way I moderate Feedback or the Help Desk are the places to discuss it, not here. I'm not hiding behind anything, it's simply don't have the time at the moment to go through each post point by point. There's no infracting/ banning going on, but posts on this thread have been reported and I'm simply asking that people keep their tempers in check.

I don't think anyone was getting bad tempered. This happens to be my hobby and I love discussing the science. But time after time, all people can come up with is 'Well I did this therefore', that's what I was pointing out in #61, I wasn't being flippant. The title of the thread is 'No carb diet', my posit is that it can be completely healthy as various populations thrive on it. My other posit is that it is by the weight of the evidence the healthier diet is a low carb one.

I welcome well-thought out scientifically based challenges and was thoroughly enjoying my debate with Tara, but sorry moonbaby, your post added nothing to the debate whatsoever.

I'm new to boards, and I've noticed on other forums a comment like moonbaby's would warrant a 'cop on, stick to topic post'. Maybe because I'm new and not part of a clique...

I'm still waiting for the list of 'highly questionable facts' btw..

El_Dangeroso

rubadub wrote: »

That is exactly what should happen, for men too. You have to adjust your fuel intake to match your current metabolism. If you change from a jeep to a mini you do not put the same petrol in each week. If you petrol tank is overflowing you know to put in less next week, if your gut is overflowing your belt you know you are eating more than you have to. People value efficiency in cars yet get upset when their own body improves its fuel efficiency.

I could similarly ask "why did the teenage girl suddenly lose a lot of weight even though she hasn't changed her eating habits since she was 5". In her case the metabolism increased and she didn't change accordingly.

There was a rugby player posting in the fitness forum who had done a lot of weight training and was ignorant of the fact that muscle would increase metabolism. He had stopped training and had gotten big, I suspect he was eating the same amount now as he was during training, pro athletes can be eating 8000kcal a day and get away with it. This is where the myth of muscle turning into fat
comes from, pro athletes or bodybuilders give up the training, lose muscle but still eat the same amount, of course they get fat!

Most people are not active enough, and lose muscle mass every year from their 20's onwards. An inactive 10stone woman at 20 will have a lot more muscle than she would at 50 and 10 stone, the fat will take up the weight of the muscle lost. Muscle needs more calories to sustain it than fat, so metabolism is lowered, and a host of other things will effect it too as mentioned. There is no point moaning or being in disbelief about putting on weight, if you are putting on weight 99% of the time you are taking in more fuel than your body needs at that time, so just deal with it, take in less fuel accordingly, just like you would with a new car.

A lot of people just do not calculate portions right at all, you get people blaming medication and stress etc, I imagine if this was such a high factor for weight increase then people studying animal husbandry would be stressing out cows to get a better meat yield per kg of feed given to them. And possibly given medication to slow their metabolism if it was so effective.

Did you know that obese people have higher metabolisms than lean? Anyone who does weight watchers knows what I mean, as you weigh less you can eat less and lose weight.

Also 1lb of muscle burns approximately 6kcal a day(Bryant, Cedric X. Ph.D., Chief Exercise Physiologist. (2006, March/April). ACE Fitness Matters, p. 6.), so if someone age 45 loses 10lb of muscle (a huge over exaggeration to prove my point) Then, according to your theory, that's a loss of 60kcals a day, if they continue to eat the same and if 1lb fat = 3,500 cals, it would take them over two years to gain 10lb, which is not really what is observed, all you'd have to do is eat one less slice of bread a day to not gain weight, don't you think most women are image conscious enough to reduce their cal consumption that much? But if that worked then weight watchers wouldn't be the massive business that it is.

Also, according the the traditional theories, you have to increase calories to increase muscle, ala the building and cutting stages of bodybuilding.

That's sticking to the calories in/calories out theory, which is the easiest theory to disprove, because it assumes that consuming calories and expending them are independent variables, which anyone who's 'worked up an appetite' knows they're not.

My theory is that hormones will take precedence in weight gain and what you eat can affect those hormones and your appetite in general. Reduced oestrogen in the case of women, reduced testosterone(to a lesser exent) in men is what causes traditional 'middle aged spread'. To simply say 'you're not active enough' is very disheartening to someone who's doing more exercise and is still gaining weight.

An interesting study put obese patients on slimfast, they gave one group a placebo and one group diazoxide, an insulin lowering drug.
The lowered insulin group lost more weight even though they consumed the exact same amount of calories:

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/full/83/6/1911/F1

But you don't need to take a drug to replicate that effect, just lower your insulin via diet.

I also want to point out that I am a great believer in the value of resistance training. But not because of the negligible increases calorie burn, but because it increases insulin sensitivity and helps prevent osteoporosis.

But any teenage boy who can't put on weight despite eating 5000 cals a day or the person with thyroid issues who can't lose weight despite eating 800 cals a day will tell you it's not as simple as calories in versus calories out. If we were built like cars, then it would be that simple, but our bodies are a little bit more complex than that.

Mr Magnolia

neddas wrote: »

I'm new to boards, and I've noticed on other forums a comment like moonbaby's would warrant a 'cop on, stick to topic post'. Maybe because I'm new and not part of a clique...

Please see g'em's comment below.

g'em wrote: »

Please, everyone, drop the sarcasm, it does little to lend weight to your argument (*glances at neddas*), the patronising (*here's looking at you Eileen and cozmik*) and the snotty jibes (*Moonbaby, please give it a rest*).

Now, as g'em has pointed out, if you've a problem with the moderation on a forum then PM the mod or take it to feedback/helpdesk. Questioning moderation in a discussion thread only ever serves to de-rail the topic at hand. Personal abuse will not be tolerated and may result in posters having their posting privilages removed, please try and be civil.

El_Dangeroso

Okiedoke, message received.

Can we get back on topic so? Anyone got a decent reply to what I've said above? References please. Preferably non-epidemiological studies, but I'll take a look at anything once..

Transform

Look there is really no need to go over in depth on any of this.

the man on the street can tell you that eating breakfast rolls twice a day and a feast of spuds in the evening is not going to help you look your best.

The stickies have all the info people need to get to about 90% of the way to looking fantastic THEN and only then hormones and their regulation will come into play.

studies-

In January 2008 the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition did an overview of 45 studies on GI and concluded: -

“Consumption of reduced Glycemic response diets is followed by favorable changes in the health markers examined. The case for the use of such diets looks compelling”.
+++++++++++++

An Italian study in October 2007 with almost 9,000 women (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition) showed that: -
“A high-GL diet may increase the risk of breast cancer in Italian women. The effect is particularly evident in premenopausal women and those with BMI < 25”.

+++++++++++++

In 2003 The British Medical Journal did a fourteen year study and found:
“There is no support for dietary fat/cholesterol and risk of stroke in men”

++++++++++++++
In October 2005 the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a study in which the diets of 2,200 post-menopausal women with low total fat intake and they discovered:
“A higher saturated fat (from meat, eggs, dairy foods) is associated with LESS progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD) whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with greater progression”
++++++++++++++

Finally, more recently the one of the most prestigious journals, the Journal of the America Medical Association (JAMA) published a study in which 50,000 women between 50-79years of age. They concluded that:
“Decreased fat and increased fruit and vegetables and grains did not decrease the risk of CVD”
+++++++++++++++++

still though as a trainer i would be the first to say screw science lets see the results with people day to day and week to week. from my experience, i have clients who look fantastic on a diet thats about 50% carbs and others that will not drop very much weight unless their diet is under 30% carbs. However, 90% of the people i deal with do NOT function well (gain weight, tired all the time etc) on a diet of more than 40% carbs and will never look their best until they drop the bread, pasta, potatoes, rice and cereals (except oats).

Low GI, protein at almost all meals, lots of good fats and plenty of good hard training - thats what works best in the real world with my clients and its what i see 365days of the year. Oh and at least half of my clients will all come back in september having gained a few pounds and have to get the ball rolling again but they NEVER go back to how bad they first started.

get the basics right for you and THEN specalise

El_Dangeroso

I think it's fantastic that you recommend low carb to your clients, I find most trainers will be amenable to the low carb way of eating due to the quick, healthy weight loss they see in their clients. One question though, do you recommend to up the fat if you recommend low carb? You really ought to be, as low carb needs high fat in order to stop the usage of protein for energy which could cause a build up of ammonia in the bloodstream.

I think there are about a million different weight loss plans out there and they ALL work. My concern is that by calorie restriction alone, you are effectively putting your body in semi-starvation mode, which results in your metabolism slowing down and loss of muscle as your body doesn't know a diet from a famine. But this doesn't happen with low carb, if your body has sufficient access to fat it will happily jetison excess weight, without stressing your body out too much.

True, 90% of people go the restricted calorie 'balanced diet' route. This almost always amounts to cutting down on fat(9 cals a gram) which I believe is unhealthy. It has been known to contribute to thryroid and gall bladder problems as well as fat soluble vitamin deficiencies.

And most people won't give low carbing a chance but that's largely due to the scare mongering surrounding low carb and by diving in at the deep end with Atkins induction carb levels rather than a gradual reduction over time, thus avoiding Atkins flu which is enough to put anyone off low carbing.

I would consider 30-40% of carbs by calories to be low-moderate carb.. then what are we arguing about again?

The issue I take with the stickies is that it all boils down to calculating your basal metabolism and staying under it. But people deserve to know that although that is a general guide, there is more to it than that. For example, I can eat 2,200 cals a day even though I generously estimated my basal rate at 1700. So why not eat more if you can get away with it?

I am completely digressing though, back on topic..

So we can all agree that you can eat a zero carb diet and be perfectly healthy.

Transform

what we can agree on is that there are people who function well on very low or zero carbs and are healthy, look great etc

AND

there are people who can eat more carbs and look fab etc

The stickies will work well for 99% of the people who read them as the majority are NOT looking to be in absolutely amazing shape (even when they say they want to be). Most want to drop a few pounds and have a few drinks on the weekend and thats a-ok with me.

The term low, zero, reduced carbs etc is not one i use much as people need to address the very basics 1st, then specialise. 99.9% of those that are looking to drop more then just a few pounds could really do with cutting back on their bread, rice, pasta, cereal, potatoes etc intake and most won't because they want to talk about getting in shape or moan about what they would have to do in order to look and feel better.

corkcomp

Transform wrote: »

what we can agree on is that there are people who function well on very low or zero carbs and are healthy, look great etc

AND

there are people who can eat more carbs and look fab etc

The stickies will work well for 99% of the people who read them as the majority are NOT looking to be in absolutely amazing shape (even when they say they want to be). Most want to drop a few pounds and have a few drinks on the weekend and thats a-ok with me.

The term low, zero, reduced carbs etc is not one i use much as people need to address the very basics 1st, then specialise. 99.9% of those that are looking to drop more then just a few pounds could really do with cutting back on their bread, rice, pasta, cereal, potatoes etc intake and most won't because they want to talk about getting in shape or moan about what they would have to do in order to look and feel better.

Doesnt it make more sense for people to only try such a low carb diet if they really need to then? After all there is no point cutting out a major food group if you can still function ok and be at your desired %BF etc by just reducing portions and being active enough ... I have dropped from over 17st to 12st over the past 2 years (i tried the low carb approach and it didnt work for me - no energy to run / do the ammount of cardio i wanted to, feeling cold, major sugar cravings etc etc) by sticking to mostly whole grains and following a 70 / 15 / 15 (carb / fat / protein) diet.... I agree with timing carbs and not eating a load of potatoes before bed etc ...

I honestly dont think the average person who is getting enough exercise and not going majorly overboard in terms of calorie intake should be told to cut out fruit, veg (any variety!) or wholegrains like porridge ..

El_Dangeroso

LOL! Totally agreed on that point.

What I really lament is that for a low carber, your lifestyle is oh so out of fashion so I'm finding it harder and harder to find things that aren't artificially lower in fat than they should be, for example deli ham/chicken. Now I know that means I'll eat less processed food which is a good thing but I wish that I could get some good quality low carb products such as stevia or erythritol without ordering them off the net.

I think low carb is sneaking back in.. note the sudden availability of celariac in supermarkets in the last year, but I doubt it'll ever be accepted by nutritionists in my lifetime.. they seem married to the 'healthy wholegrain' idea. They've sort of acknowledged it through the whole GI/GL thing, but that is needlessly complicated to avoid the fact that you can make any food low gi if you couple it with copious fat (see icecream) but you can't really escape that it's the carbs.. which a lot of people seem really addicted to and incredibly reluctant to give up.. that's why if I believed the healthiest diet to eat was vegetarian, I would be vegetarian in a shot.. I'd happily give up meat for pasta and potatoes, you don't really get addicted to meat, but can suffer horrible withdrawal symptoms from giving up wheat which would lead me to believe that it's about as good for you as cigarettes..

rubadub

neddas wrote: »

Did you know that obese people have higher metabolisms than lean?

Yes, just like an adult has a higher metabolism than a baby. Many do not realise this, but would have no problem acknowledging that a baby does not need as much food. So many people may arrive at a stable weight eating the same stuff each day. Then they lose fat, go back to their old diet and wonder why it goes on again.

neddas wrote: »

Also 1lb of muscle burns approximately 6kcal a day(Bryant, Cedric X. Ph.D., Chief Exercise Physiologist. (2006, March/April). ACE Fitness Matters, p. 6.), so if someone age 45 loses 10lb of muscle (a huge over exaggeration to prove my point) Then, according to your theory, that's a loss of 60kcals a day, if they continue to eat the same and if 1lb fat = 3,500 cals, it would take them over two years to gain 10lb, which is not really what is observed,

I think the average man loses 1-2kg of muscle per decade, so 10lb is not too extreme. I always wanted to know how many calories it used up, thought it would be more than 6kcal, but looking at other calculators it does seem right. I was also talking of people remaining the same weight, so the person would have 10lb more fat that uses calories to be maintained too. I accept that the norm is not to put on 10lb, but I would also expect people are changing their food intake accordingly, consciously or subconsciously. A baby needs less food so stops eating when they are full, if your metabolism drops you should feel satisfied with less food, but many are in a habit of eating X-amount of food.

neddas wrote: »

all you'd have to do is eat one less slice of bread a day to not gain weight, don't you think most women are image conscious enough to reduce their cal consumption that much?

No, I really do not think so. I know a few women who are always going on about their weight but eat shocking amounts, and know they do. The thread on the "hackers diet", is using the logic "why bother working out for an hour to burn 500kcal, simply eat 500kcal less", reducing food intake is very hard for many people. I really think most peoples problem is portion control, both over and underweight people. I know thin people who think they eat normally, but they pick at food and do not finish it all, and vice versa, the big guys have massive portions.

neddas wrote: »

But if that worked then weight watchers wouldn't be the massive business that it is.

Are you saying if calorie counting worked? WW is essentially a portion control program, and people do lose weight on it. I have several issues with WW, but it does work for many.

neddas wrote: »

My theory is that hormones will take precedence in weight gain and what you eat can affect those hormones and your appetite in general. Reduced oestrogen in the case of women, reduced testosterone(to a lesser exent) in men is what causes traditional 'middle aged spread'. To simply say 'you're not active enough' is very disheartening to someone who's doing more exercise and is still gaining weight.

I see what you are saying, and I think we do agree on one very important thing, that all calories are not equal and 500kcal of one food might not have the same effect as 500kcal of another. I have brought this point up many times before, I have found it myself and observing other people with alcohol, where we were ingesting massive amounts of calories in alcohol yet not putting on weight. I am an engineer and have calculated calorie contents of substances in a lab before. Calories have nothing to do with humans, it is a measure of fuel, if you drink 3500kcal of petrol I doubt you will put on 1lb of fat.
However I do think calorie counting is a good averaged method for most people to achieve correct portion control, just like BMI is OK for most people. I fully accept that peoples metabolism may change for various reasons, and people have to figure out their own food needs, be it weighing, counting calories, counting points.

neddas wrote: »

To simply say 'you're not active enough' is very disheartening to someone who's doing more exercise and is still gaining weight.

You are talking of changing foods. I am talking about eating the same food day in, day out. If you are putting on fat then in my mind you are eating too much, you have to adjust your food intake until your weight stabilises where you want it to. So if you are eating the same foods day in day out then calorie counting is equivalent to just weighing the food. If you are eating 5000 or 500kcal of

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

LOL! Totally agreed on that point.

you don't really get addicted to meat, but can suffer horrible withdrawal symptoms from giving up wheat which would lead me to believe that it's about as good for you as cigarettes..

i guess the readers can form their own opinion on that statement but i think i will take my chances and continue to eat wheat!

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

Doesnt it make more sense for people to only try such a low carb diet if they really need to then? After all there is no point cutting out a major food group if you can still function ok and be at your desired %BF etc by just reducing portions and being active enough ... I have dropped from over 17st to 12st over the past 2 years (i tried the low carb approach and it didnt work for me - no energy to run / do the ammount of cardio i wanted to, feeling cold, major sugar cravings etc etc) by sticking to mostly whole grains and following a 70 / 15 / 15 (carb / fat / protein) diet.... I agree with timing carbs and not eating a load of potatoes before bed etc ...

I honestly dont think the average person who is getting enough exercise and not going majorly overboard in terms of calorie intake should be told to cut out fruit, veg (any variety!) or wholegrains like porridge ..

The only thing I will say is that people who have cardiovascular disease are given advice to eat low fat and more wholegrains and then are puzzled when they continue to have heart attacks, for example, the recent death of journalist Tim Russert.

Also don't get me wrong <20g a day is hardcore totally inadvisable as it basically puts your body into shock, but <60g a day is totally manageable for most people.. that's lots of veggies including one potato and a slice of spelt bread, hardly bacon and eggs all day..although you can have those too if you want!

KatCookie

corkcomp wrote: »

i guess the readers can form their own opinion on that statement but i think i will take my chances and continue to eat wheat!

Wheat is in everything i dont think its possible to get away from it, i still eat pasta and things even though i think i have a slight wheat allergy.
Wholegrain isnt all its cracked up to be, i ate Oat Cheerios for a couple of days and couldnt believe how much sugar was in them!, they claim to be Wholegrain but whats the point of being wholegrain if all they contain is sugar!
give me boring Wheatabix any day!

I think the hardest thing for people like myself who tried the low carbs thing for a while is that it is hard to make up the energy, i just felt lethargic and not well in myself because i couldnt find where to make up the missing energy, also i dont eat chicken so i'm limiting myself alot more. thats possibly where alot of the criticism comes in.

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

The only thing I will say is that people who have cardiovascular disease are given advice to eat low fat and more wholegrains and then are puzzled when they continue to have heart attacks, for example, the recent death of journalist Tim Russert.

Also don't get me wrong <20g a day is hardcore totally inadvisable as it basically puts your body into shock, but <60g a day is totally manageable for most people.. that's lots of veggies including one potato and a slice of spelt bread, hardly bacon and eggs all day..although you can have those too if you want!

well ... my last cholesterol result was 3.9 and HDL levels were good, my readings before i started my current diet wouldnt make for pretty reading! sorry if it looks like i am just trying to contradict you but im trying to get across to readers that they shouldnt believe the first thing they read ... one thing we can agree on though ... <20g a day is not a ogod idea for anyone!