safely reduce body fat

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Think there is a typo here should that not be 150g or is this another figure than your previous one? If so be interested to know the reasons for the difference and in what situation each applies?

No typo. I explained it previously. Google ketosis for yourself.

rocky

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'm not wrong.

Your body is obviously not using fat as fuel. Are you eating at least 70 % fat and less than 50 g carbs a day or have you ever? If you haven't then I doubt your body has ever used fat as fuel.

Are you eating >70% fat ? According to a previous thread you're at 50% max? So what are you preaching here?

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

No typo. I explained it previously. Google ketosis for yourself.

Gotcha now . How long would it usually take for a ketogenic diet to restore power for a lifter (or any athlete) ?

Bruno26

rocky wrote: »

Are you eating >70% fat ? According to a previous thread you're at 50% max? So what are you preaching here?

Over 70% fat and under 50 g carb to ensure they are using fat as fuel / ketosis / fat adapted.

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Gotcha now . How long would it usually take for a ketogenic diet to restore power for a lifter (or any athlete) ?

Do you mean when do you feel good again after switching to hflc? If so according to the experts on ketosis it can take anything from 5/6 days to 3/4 weeks. Everyone is different.

Bruno26

http://www.examiner.com/article/best-diet-for-athletes-paleo-versus-vegan-versus-high-fat-low-carb-debate

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

Do you mean when do you feel good again after switching to hflc? If so according to the experts on ketosis it can take anything from 5/6 days to 3/4 weeks. Everyone is different.

But Essien has been HFLC for quite a bit longer than that

Bruno26 wrote: »

http://www.examiner.com/article/best-diet-for-athletes-paleo-versus-vegan-versus-high-fat-low-carb-debate

Problem with that articles is you are basing the results on sports which rely on on fat adaptation simply due to their extreme endurance demands given the body can't get all energy required for +10 hr events from carbohydrates (not to mention the fact that the anecdotal evidence is a gluten intolerant athlete feeling better when they stop eating gluten is like telling someone with a peanut allergy to cut peanuts out of their diet)

What about the effects of a ketogenic diet on things like Vo2 max output among other things.

Personally I think you need to tailor things a bit more and look at who is looking for advice.

Essien

ecoli wrote: »

But Essien has been HFLC for quite a bit longer than that

In fairness, I haven't been proper HFLC, just a lot closer to it than I used to be. Certainly well within Brunos previous recommendations.

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

But Essien has been HFLC for quite a bit longer than that



Personally I think you need to tailor things a bit more and look at who is looking for advice.

I agree with that.

Big difference between eating hflc or thinking you are eating hflc and actually being in ketosis / fat adapted.

ecoli

Bruno26 wrote: »

I agree with that.

Big difference between eating hflc or thinking you are eating hflc and actually being in ketosis / fat adapted.

Really??

Every post I have come across from you on this forum has been pretty much the exact same advice irregardless of background.

Out of interest would there be any situation which you feel a more medium to high carb intake may be of use?

Essien

Bruno26 wrote: »

I agree with that.

Big difference between eating hflc or thinking you are eating hflc and actually being in ketosis / fat adapted.

I though you only eat about 55% fat? Same as myself, so stick your 'thinking' up your hole.

Also, have all your other recommendations of 100/150g of carbs now become redundant? It's ketosis or nothing now by the looks of it.

Bruno26

ecoli wrote: »

Really??

Every post I have come across from you on this forum has been pretty much the exact same advice irregardless of background.

Out of interest would there be any situation which you feel a more medium to high carb intake may be of use?

Yes a big difference.

I don't believe high carb is ideal for anyone. It also suggests your missing out on lots of nutrient dense foods.

Everyone is different. Some people tolerate carbs much better than others- some people never put on weight. I believe that most people who really struggle with weight are carbohydrate resistant to a certain extent. For them the restriction of carbs, the elimination of sugar and grains and the increase in fat and protein will solve their weight problems.

I believe the optimal diet to be a combination of grass fed meat (offal), seafood, green veg, veg, nuts, berries, full fat dairy, olive oil, coconut oil.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

I though you only eat about 55% fat? Same as myself, so stick your 'thinking' up your hole.

Also, have all your other recommendations of 100/150g of carbs now become redundant? It's ketosis or nothing now by the looks of it.

Good manners.

It varies.

I was asked about ketosis.

No they're fully relevant. I've previously explained what will happen at those figures.

55% fat is unlikely to ever get you into ketosis.

Has your pee ever smelt funny? Have you got ketone sticks to test yourself?

Essien

Bruno26 wrote: »

Good manners.

It varies.

I was asked about ketosis.

No they're fully relevant. I've previously explained what will happen at those figures.

55% fat is unlikely to ever get you into ketosis.

Has your pee ever smelt funny? Have you got ketone sticks to test yourself?

I never suggested I was in or anywhere near ketosis, you brought that up. I said my diet was/is well within what you previously recommended and my performance appears to be worse.

Then when I was doing everything you advise against, I was doing a lot better.

Then you moved the goal posts.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

I never suggested I was in or anywhere near ketosis, you brought that up. I said my diet was/is well within what you previously recommended and my performance appears to be worse.

Then when I was doing everything you advise against, I was doing a lot better.

Then you moved the goal posts.

You are getting your fuel from carbs. You eat less carbs and undergo strenuous exercise and you feel worse. You are not running on fat. you are running on less carbs- that is why your performance suffered.

Eat more fat and you might start running on fat- only then can you judge if it benefits you or not.

No goalposts moved. Different amount of carbs and fat give different results.

Essien

Bruno26 wrote: »

You are not running on fat. you are running on less carbs- that is why your performance suffered.

Fair enough.

So you still think your blanket suggestion of <150g of carbs is ideal for everyone, despite your belief that it will result in poor performance.

Just to reiterate, I'm not confirming or denying anything, just suggesting a correlation. You're the one who appears very confident that reduced carbs without the caveat of ketosis will negatively affect performance.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

Fair enough.

So you still think your blanket suggestion of <150g of carbs is ideal for everyone, despite your belief that it will result in poor performance.

Just to reiterate, I'm not confirming or denying anything, just suggesting a correlation. You're the one who appears very confident that reduced carbs without the caveat of ketosis will negatively affect performance.

I'm talking specifically about the average person looking to lose or maintain weight, get healthy and reasonably fit by doing weights and sprints 2-3 times a week. I'm not talking about specific performance as those will probably need to eat differently around the time of theperformance.




150 g is perfect for anyone looking to easily maintain weight.

100 g is ideal to lose weight

50 g is even better to lose weight along with a fair chance you will go into ketosis if eating enough fat.

Calories are not counted only carbs initially until you figure out how many grams you are eating. All of this is based on no grains or no sugar ( processed food).

Eat as much as you want or until you are fully satiated.

Becoming fat adapted will probably only happen if you get down to 50 g and eat enough fat .

Alf Veedersane

How do you measure what's 'enough' fat?

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

How do you measure what's 'enough' fat?

You count!

Use that my fitness pal app to help.

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

You count!

Use that my fitness pal app to help.

So you're counting carbs and counting fat.

But not counting.

Got it.

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So you're counting carbs and counting fat.

But not counting.

Got it.

Yes initially. What's the issue?

Your average person trying to lose weight only looks at calories. Most people know nothing about macros. Before I decided to change I knew nothing about macros. I believed the only to lose weight was by counting calories at every meal.

After going through a lot of info I realised looking at macros is far easier and sustainable.

I counted for roughly 3 days before I got the hang of it.

Essien

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So you're counting carbs and counting fat.

But not counting.

Got it.

The sad part is that there's a great message hidden away there behind the seemingly endless layers of defiance, contradictions and outright bullsh1t.

Keep fighting the good fight Bruno, I'm out though.

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes initially. What's the issue?

Your average person trying to lose weight only looks at calories. Most people know nothing about macros. Before I decided to change I knew nothing about macros. I believed the only to lose weight was by counting calories at every meal.

After going through a lot of info I realised looking at macros is far easier and sustainable.

I counted for roughly 3 days before I got the hang of it.

There is no issue. It's just what I said 194 posts ago that you didn't seem to agree with.

Use myfitnesspal to understand what you're eating and what you're getting from it. It doesn't have to be a lifelong support - just a tool for understanding what you eat and what you get from it.

Many people, like you, don't know anything about macros either. But they educate themselves on it, like you did.

Some people only need to use it for three days, some people need to use it for 3 weeks, some might even need to use if for longer.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

The sad part is that there's a great message hidden away there behind the seemingly endless layers of defiance, contradictions and outright bullsh1t.

Keep fighting the good fight Bruno, I'm out though.

Strange to say that.

Don't get annoyed because you've just realised (have been told the truth) that you've not been doing it right.

You guys make it complicated.

Good luck in whatever you are trying to do.

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

There is no issue. It's just what I said 194 posts ago that you didn't seem to agree with.

Use myfitnesspal to understand what you're eating and what you're getting from it. It doesn't have to be a lifelong support - just a tool for understanding what you eat and what you get from it.

Many people, like you, don't know anything about macros either. But they educate themselves on it, like you did.

Some people only need to use it for three days, some people need to use it for 3 weeks, some might even need to use if for longer.

I see.

The problem is the majority trying to lose weight do it through calorie restriction. They find it very tough. They often lose weight then put it back on again. They don't actually learn about what foods they should be eating. I believe it's completely unsustainable. Changing your attitude to food and changing your habits will result in a sustainable lifelong solution.

Essien

Bruno26 wrote: »

Don't get annoyed because you've just realised (have been told the truth) that you've not been doing it right.

You're right for once. I think I'll take you're advice and eat enough carbs to support my activity level. Cheers B.

Now I'm going back to eatin' grains and makin' gainz!

Alf Veedersane

Bruno26 wrote: »

I see.

The problem is the majority trying to lose weight do it through calorie restriction. They find it very tough. They often lose weight then put it back on again. They don't actually learn about what foods they should be eating. I believe it's completely unsustainable. Changing your attitude to food and changing your habits will result in a sustainable lifelong solution.

That goes hand in hand with educating yourself about food though.

The people that don't will continue to eat the same thing until they hit their limit and find themselves hungry and then go for more food. And it isn't sustainable. I agree.

But those same people are doomed to failure until such time as they realise that they're making bad food choices. When they know what those are and have a decent understanding in what good food actually is, then they're in a position to make choices.

Those choices will include the choice you've made but they will also include other ways of eating. There isn't a one size fits all but there are common principles.

It just doesn't have to be as restrictie as you suggest to get to where you want.

The thing is, Bruno, we probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

Bruno26

Essien wrote: »

You're right for once. I think I'll take you're advice and eat enough carbs to support my activity level. Cheers B.

Now I'm going back to eatin' grains and makin' gainz!

Sound. Best of luck

Bruno26

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

That goes hand in hand with educating yourself about food though.

The people that don't will continue to eat the same thing until they hit their limit and find themselves hungry and then go for more food. And it isn't sustainable. I agree.

But those same people are doomed to failure until such time as they realise that they're making bad food choices. When they know what those are and have a decent understanding in what good food actually is, then they're in a position to make choices.

Those choices will include the choice you've made but they will also include other ways of eating. There isn't a one size fits all but there are common principles.

It just doesn't have to be as restrictie as you suggest to get to where you want.

The thing is, Bruno, we probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on.

Yes I 'd have to agree with you on all the above. It comes across as very restrictive but I don't find it restrictive at all. Again it's whatever works for the individual in a sustainable way.

MaceFace

Bruno26 - I don't think you seem to really understand or believe what you are saying as your responses in this and other threads change often.

For the last few weeks in the posts that I have seen from you, you have this magic number of 150g of carbs being what people should aim for, but you have not given any real detail or explanation of why this number is magic.

150 g is perfect for anyone looking to easily maintain weight.

100 g is ideal to lose weight

50 g is even better to lose weight along with a fair chance you will go into ketosis if eating enough fat.

You have claimed (in previous posts and alluded to here) that as long as you stick to 150g carbs/day, you won't put on weight, regardless of how much protein or fat is in your diet. That's just plain wrong.

You claimed (in previous posts and alluded to here) that as long as you stick to 100g carbs/day, you will lose weight. That's just plain wrong.

You claimed that 50g/day is even better to lose weight. Firstly, on semantics, how can 100g be ideal but 50g be better?
Can *you* explain how the body reacts differently in terms of weight loss when the amount of carbs consumed differs between 50,100 and 150g?

Can you also explain why someone will want to be in a state of ketosis?

Bruno26

MaceFace wrote: »

Bruno26 - I don't think you seem to really understand or believe what you are saying as your responses in this and other threads change often.

For the last few weeks in the posts that I have seen from you, you have this magic number of 150g of carbs being what people should aim for, but you have not given any real detail or explanation of why this number is magic.



You have claimed (in previous posts and alluded to here) that as long as you stick to 150g carbs/day, you won't put on weight, regardless of how much protein or fat is in your diet. That's just plain wrong.

You claimed (in previous posts and alluded to here) that as long as you stick to 100g carbs/day, you will lose weight. That's just plain wrong.

You claimed that 50g/day is even better to lose weight. Firstly, on semantics, how can 100g be ideal but 50g be better?
Can *you* explain how the body reacts differently in terms of weight loss when the amount of carbs consumed differs between 50,100 and 150g?

Can you also explain why someone will want to be in a state of ketosis?

I understand it and believe it. You appear to be the one who is confused.

It's near impossible to overeat fat and protein. People will say it isn't but it is. Fat especially satiates the appetite therefore you stop eating when full or satisfied.

Over 150 g results in increased insulin production. The more you go over the more fat you gain.

Under minimises insulin production and results in fat burning .


Someone might want to be in ketosis so they are certain they are being fuelled by fat.

MaceFace

Bruno26 wrote: »

I understand it and believe it. You appear to be the one who is confused.

It's near impossible to overeat fat and protein. People will say it isn't but it is. Fat especially satiates the appetite therefore you stop eating when full or satisfied.

You may think so, but that is not true. Here is a sample from my food log I kept from when I was in keto:

Column1 Food Protein Carbs Fat Calories
Before 12 2 eggs 15 0 15 195
2 sausages 10 5 10 150
Cheese 10 5 20 240
Oil 0 0 10 90
Cream Coffee 0 0 15 135
Cream Coffee 0 0 6 54
12 to 5 Cheese 12.5 0 15 185
4 eggs 29 0 26 350
60g cheese 16 1 12 176
Exec Coffee 0 0 15 135
caesar dressing 1 1 17 161
salad leaves 0 0 0 0
50g almonds 25 11 11 243

after 5 400g steak 88 0 24 568
caesar dressing 1 1 17 161
salad leaves 0 0 0 0
Exec Coffee 0 0 12 108
Exec Coffee 0 0 15 135
4 fat bombs 7.5 5.5 40 412

Daily Total 215 29.5 280 3498


That is 3500 calories in 1 day made up of 280g fat/215g protein.
You call it what you like but there is no way you will not put on weight with a diet like that.
And the interesting thing about the human body and one of the reasons so many people are overweight, is the body adapts to the increased food intake.

Take those beauties fat bombs. I could easily eat 10 of those with a cup of tea. No problem. That's 1000 calories right there!

Bruno26 wrote: »

Over 150 g results in increased insulin production. The more you go over the more fat you gain.

Under minimises insulin production and results in fat burning .

Hold on here..... you are saying that if you eat over 150g of carbs a day, you will gain fat, and the more you go over, the more fat you will gain?
Seriously? That would mean that anyone who consumed more than 600 calories a day from carbs is getting fatter. And this is regardless of what else they eat?

Bruno26 wrote: »

Someone might want to be in ketosis so they are certain they are being fuelled by fat.

What difference does this make? If you are consuming 2000 calories in a day and your body requires 2000 calories of energy a day, it's not like your body is going to ignore the food you consume and power itself off body fat???

ford2600

Essien wrote: »

The sad part is that there's a great message hidden away there behind the seemingly endless layers of defiance, contradictions and outright bullsh1t.

Keep fighting the good fight Bruno, I'm out though.

@essien a common enough problem with hflc, especially if eating mainly unprocessed foods and avoiding bacon is the absence of adequate salt in diet.
My only source of salt in diet is from cheese/yoghurt so I need to add it in. Seemingly your body dumps salt on diet also.
Good excuse to play around with a few nice sea salts!
Two fairly non mainstream guys, Dr Kendrick and Taubes have written interesting articles on it.
Also high fat may not be for you.
Volek and Phinney have highlighted in one of their books the most common pitfalls. I will post when I find book if you wish.

if not enjoy your pasta!

crazydom

Apple cider vinegar tablets are proving popular as is green tea!

Essien

ford2600 wrote: »

@essien a common enough problem with hflc, especially if eating mainly unprocessed foods and avoiding bacon is the absence of adequate salt in diet.
My only source of salt in diet is from cheese/yoghurt so I need to add it in. Seemingly your body dumps salt on diet also.
Good excuse to play around with a few nice sea salts!
Two fairly non mainstream guys, Dr Kendrick and Taubes have written interesting articles on it.
Also high fat may not be for you.
Volek and Phinney have highlighted in one of their books the most common pitfalls. I will post when I find book if you wish.

if not enjoy your pasta!

I'm not totally HFLC, just higher than I used to be. Around 55% fat. I eat bacon though, not every day, maybe a couple of times a week. I'd eat cheese every day though. I wasn't aware I should be adding salt to my diet, it's interesting though, I'll have a look into it.

I'm not writing off eating this way, more like giving it a fair crack and seeing how I go. As I've said, my low energy/strength could be a number of things at the moment.

Not a big pasta fan, if I eat more carbs the main difference will be a lot more sweet potato.

jebuz

This is an interesting topic (though now off topic) and a lot of great info here. Since it was mentioned, I'll throw in my experience with hflc and athletic performance to try balance the debate.

After listening to a Barry Murray (ultra runner & sports nutritionist) series of talks a few years ago and hearing about his first hand experience and success with the approach, I liked the idea of eating simple whole non-processed foods and fuelling your body primarily by fat. It was turning everything I thought about running nutrition on its head, he said fat is a much more efficient fuel with more than enough reserves to supply your endurance activities without having to rely on carbs, this made sense for long distance running as the body can only store approx. 2000 kcals of glucose. I was training for a marathon at the time but eating carbs around me like there was no tomorrow, and very skeptical. It took me a while but I finally adopted the approach for a marathon last year with good success running a very comfortable race and new PB. This year I've been even more focussed on getting the diet right with some help from Barry and so far so good. My training would be typically 60-70 miles a week with 2-3 intense sessions and a long run every Sunday.

I don't count portions exactly but I'm probably eating < 150-200g carbs most days depending on the intensity of the session. I don't really like the term hflc, it's just low carb I guess compared to typical consumption, i.e with every meal. I time the carbs to be eaten directly after training - fruit smoothie & honey within 10 mins and then sweet potato/rice/whatever with dinner. The rest of my diet during the day is plenty of green veg, fat and protein in the form of eggs, ham, steak, yoghurt, nuts etc etc, you know the deal. I read wheat belly last year too and while I'm not convinced it's as evil as the author makes it out to be, I still cut down a lot on grains no longer eating bread or pasta. I do think there's potential long term health affects with overconsumption of these modified modern grains and though I don't have any digestive problems I do feel I'm better off keeping them to a minimum. On the rare occasion that I do consume grains I never feel good after them, sluggishness and a feeling of bloatedness typically follows.

While this may not work for everyone, this seems to works for me, and I think that's the general consensus here, experiment and find out what works for you. For me, energy levels are good, I'm probably the leanest I've been and I'm performing like I never have before both in training and racing, plus I don't crave junk and I feel satiated after most meals. Compared to when I was on a high carb diet and training, I train better on empty rather than after a few slices of toast or a bagel beforehand and I have shed a couple of stubborn pounds which really makes a difference when racing.

As I said I train on empty all the time and know that I'll be able to perform because of the carb backloading the day before, it's a really simple approach when you step back and look at it.

There are a few comments to suggest that this diet won't/can't work for athletes or that it only works for lower intensities but I'm training and racing at all intensities from 5k - marathon and with ideal results, that's not to say blankly that they're wrong, I'm just saying it can work.

The body is extremely adaptable and this takes time and patience but once adjusted it's becomes part of your lifestyle and you naturally make better food choices. I'm not in a state of ketosis as I still consume carbs but the intensity of my sessions determine what my preferred source of fuel is. If I run slow, I can run for a long time as the majority of fuel I burn is coming from fat. If I run a hard session, I'm going to use the carbs I have stored in my muscles from the previous day and I can still perform, we know fat can't be converted quickly enough during intense sessions.

A good example of this is Zach Bitter the hugely successful ultrarunner who participated in a study of what type of fuel he burns at difference intensities, really interesting post on his blog is here.

Alf Veedersane

It's more suited to ultrarunning and endurance events though.

I remember being at a talk on marathon training back in the day and listening to a chap whoise name eludes me discuss nutrition and how to train your body to help with adaptation to using fat as a fuel as well.

But that doesn't mean it translates to all sports.

ford2600

jebuz wrote: »

This is an interesting topic (though now off topic) and a lot of great info here. Since it was mentioned, I'll throw in my experience with hflc and athletic performance to try balance the debate.

After listening to a Barry Murray (ultra runner & sports nutritionist) series of talks a few years ago and hearing about his first hand experience and success with the approach, I liked the idea of eating simple whole non-processed foods and fuelling your body primarily by fat. It was turning everything I thought about running nutrition on its head, he said fat is a much more efficient fuel with more than enough reserves to supply your endurance activities without having to rely on carbs, this made sense for long distance running as the body can only store approx. 2000 kcals of glucose. I was training for a marathon at the time but eating carbs around me like there was no tomorrow, and very skeptical. It took me a while but I finally adopted the approach for a marathon last year with good success running a very comfortable race and new PB. This year I've been even more focussed on getting the diet right with some help from Barry and so far so good. My training would be typically 60-70 miles a week with 2-3 intense sessions and a long run every Sunday.

I don't count portions exactly but I'm probably eating < 150-200g carbs most days depending on the intensity of the session. I don't really like the term hflc, it's just low carb I guess compared to typical consumption, i.e with every meal. I time the carbs to be eaten directly after training - fruit smoothie & honey within 10 mins and then sweet potato/rice/whatever with dinner. The rest of my diet during the day is plenty of green veg, fat and protein in the form of eggs, ham, steak, yoghurt, nuts etc etc, you know the deal. I read wheat belly last year too and while I'm not convinced it's as evil as the author makes it out to be, I still cut down a lot on grains no longer eating bread or pasta. I do think there's potential long term health affects with overconsumption of these modified modern grains and though I don't have any digestive problems I do feel I'm better off keeping them to a minimum. On the rare occasion that I do consume grains I never feel good after them, sluggishness and a feeling of bloatedness typically follows.

While this may not work for everyone, this seems to works for me, and I think that's the general consensus here, experiment and find out what works for you. For me, energy levels are good, I'm probably the leanest I've been and I'm performing like I never have before both in training and racing, plus I don't crave junk and I feel satiated after most meals. Compared to when I was on a high carb diet and training, I train better on empty rather than after a few slices of toast or a bagel beforehand and I have shed a couple of stubborn pounds which really makes a difference when racing.

As I said I train on empty all the time and know that I'll be able to perform because of the carb backloading the day before, it's a really simple approach when you step back and look at it.

There are a few comments to suggest that this diet won't/can't work for athletes or that it only works for lower intensities but I'm training and racing at all intensities from 5k - marathon and with ideal results, that's not to say blankly that they're wrong, I'm just saying it can work.

The body is extremely adaptable and this takes time and patience but once adjusted it's becomes part of your lifestyle and you naturally make better food choices. I'm not in a state of ketosis as I still consume carbs but the intensity of my sessions determine what my preferred source of fuel is. If I run slow, I can run for a long time as the majority of fuel I burn is coming from fat. If I run a hard session, I'm going to use the carbs I have stored in my muscles from the previous day and I can still perform, we know fat can't be converted quickly enough during intense sessions.

A good example of this is Zach Bitter the hugely successful ultrarunner who participated in a study of what type of fuel he burns at difference intensities, really interesting post on his blog is here.

Great post. I think the same as you, this can work really well for some but I'm not pushing it on anyone.

Barry Murray is an interesting man.

Just after switching my training from steady ulra endurance cycling to much higher intensity and haven't had the energy crisis I expected!

Will see what happens when I add in the weight training

jebuz

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's more suited to ultrarunning and endurance events though.

I remember being at a talk on marathon training back in the day and listening to a chap whoise name eludes me discuss nutrition and how to train your body to help with adaptation to using fat as a fuel as well.

But that doesn't mean it translates to all sports.

Agree with you there Alf, it makes a lot more sense for marathon and ultrarunning moreso, these are the guys who need to keep themselves fuelled for hours but my point is that the approach can work for the higher intensity stuff too with the right balance of carbs. Sure, you might get similar results on a HC diet but I think it could be a healthier lifestyle long term.

ford2600 wrote: »

Great post. I think the same as you, this can work really well for some but I'm not pushing it on anyone.

Barry Murray is an interesting man.

Just after switching my training from steady ulra endurance cycling to much higher intensity and haven't had the energy crisis I expected!

Will see what happens when I add in the weight training

Ah it's yourself Good to hear positive results there, I'm doing a bit of weight training too twice a week but then I just eat a little more on those days and up the protein intake.

Alf Veedersane

jebuz wrote: »

Agree with you there Alf, it makes a lot more sense for marathon and ultrarunning moreso, these are the guys who need to keep themselves fuelled for hours but my point is that the approach can work for the higher intensity stuff too with the right balance of carbs. Sure, you might get similar results on a HC diet but I think it could be a healthier lifestyle long term.

I don't overdo it on carbs for the higher intensity stuff, to be honest. That's where I think some people go wrong sometimes.

I'd have added in oats when I was playing football or taekwondo training but I wouldn't go having a trough of pasta.

jebuz

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I don't overdo it on carbs for the higher intensity stuff, to be honest. That's where I think some people go wrong sometimes.

I'd have addded in oats when I was playing football or taekwondo training but I wouldn't go having a trough of pasta.

I'm not saying you do, it's a general thing and you're right a lot of runners are swimming in bowls of pasta and bagels and wondering why they're not losing weight or feeling sluggish all the time. We've been repeatedly told carbs are essential for performance but it's not true, people need to experiment more.

Bruno26

MaceFace wrote: »

You may think so, but that is not true. Here is a sample from my food log I kept from when I was in keto:

Column1 Food Protein Carbs Fat Calories
Before 12 2 eggs 15 0 15 195
2 sausages 10 5 10 150
Cheese 10 5 20 240
Oil 0 0 10 90
Cream Coffee 0 0 15 135
Cream Coffee 0 0 6 54
12 to 5 Cheese 12.5 0 15 185
4 eggs 29 0 26 350
60g cheese 16 1 12 176
Exec Coffee 0 0 15 135
caesar dressing 1 1 17 161
salad leaves 0 0 0 0
50g almonds 25 11 11 243

after 5 400g steak 88 0 24 568
caesar dressing 1 1 17 161
salad leaves 0 0 0 0
Exec Coffee 0 0 12 108
Exec Coffee 0 0 15 135
4 fat bombs 7.5 5.5 40 412

Daily Total 215 29.5 280 3498


That is 3500 calories in 1 day made up of 280g fat/215g protein.
You call it what you like but there is no way you will not put on weight with a diet like that.
And the interesting thing about the human body and one of the reasons so many people are overweight, is the body adapts to the increased food intake.

Take those beauties fat bombs. I could easily eat 10 of those with a cup of tea. No problem. That's 1000 calories right there!


Hold on here..... you are saying that if you eat over 150g of carbs a day, you will gain fat, and the more you go over, the more fat you will gain?
Seriously? That would mean that anyone who consumed more than 600 calories a day from carbs is getting fatter. And this is regardless of what else they eat?



What difference does this make? If you are consuming 2000 calories in a day and your body requires 2000 calories of energy a day, it's not like your body is going to ignore the food you consume and power itself off body fat???

I'd be very surprised if someone got fat from that. I'm eating as much as that (often more) and I've lost fat (from around 22-23% bf to 14% bf)

I'm talking about the average overweight carbohydrate resistant person trying to lose weight. It all applies.

ecoli

jebuz wrote: »

I'm not saying you do, it's a general thing and you're right a lot of runners are swimming in bowls of pasta and bagels and wondering why they're not losing weight or feeling sluggish all the time. We've been repeatedly told carbs are essential for performance but it's not true, people need to experiment more.

I think the problem here is the common Irish mentality if a little is good then more must be better. You then go down the path of gorging as opposed to fueling

conzy

Anecdotal evidence:

I have been on restricted carbs for weeks because I'm trying to reduce bodyfat. This week I've been eating considerably more carbs.

I'm by no means a cyclist but I use the strava app and keep an eye on segment times. Yesterday I set the 2nd fastest time on a segment and hammered my housemates time (who would cycle a lot more) it was an all out effort and my legs were burning at the end of it. Around 2 minutes

I know for a fact I would not have been able to produce that a week ago on restricted carbs.

I think "earn your carbs" is a good approach. If you need them to support lifting / sports etc then great. But there is no way untrained average joe should be eating 400g carbs a day and a lot of them are

TLDR;

Ate carbs, was better at high intensity activity

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if someone got fat from that.

You don't even know his height, age, weight or activity level. Shows you don't have a clue.

Give one reason to how or why over consuming calories, as long as they're from fat, won't make you gain weight. eg how having a caloric expenditure of 2,500 calories and eating 3,500 calories won't make you gain weight.

It's your chance to show you're not a spoofer Bruno. If you can't put on weight from fat there has to be a reason. Saying there is no reason, or it just happens is literally the same thing as saying it is supernatural.

Don't make a statement with no rationale, such as fat doesn't make you fat, carbs are evil or whatever. Don't mention carbs at all, just the reason fat doesn't make you fat. Don't send me to a book either. If it's in a book you can write it out for me.

I look forward to you brushing it off.

generic2012

conzy wrote: »

I think "earn your carbs" is a good approach. If you need them to support lifting / sports etc then great. But there is no way untrained average joe should be eating 400g carbs a day and a lot of them are

+1

Someone mentioned carb backloading earlier, heard others on about it too.

In trained individuals it's very very difficult to put on fat from carbs, weight from glycogen but not fat.

Heavy intake of carbs directly around workouts and as little as is comfortable otherwise, if weight loss while maintaining performance is desired, as is/should be the cause with most.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

You don't even know his height, age, weight or activity level. Shows you don't have a clue.

Give one reason to how or why over consuming calories, as long as they're from fat, won't make you gain weight. eg how having a caloric expenditure of 2,500 calories and eating 3,500 calories won't make you gain weight.

It's your chance to show you're not a spoofer Bruno. If you can't put on weight from fat there has to be a reason. Saying there is no reason, or it just happens is literally the same thing as saying it is supernatural.

Don't make a statement with no rationale, such as fat doesn't make you fat, carbs are evil or whatever. Don't mention carbs at all, just the reason fat doesn't make you fat. Don't send me to a book either. If it's in a book you can write it out for me.

I look forward to you brushing it off.

Always talking about the average person. If you read more carefully you'd have seen this.

It's really simple - sugar increases blood sugar while fat does not. Sugar makes you fat.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

+1

Someone mentioned carb backloading earlier, heard others on about it too.

In trained individuals it's very very difficult to put on fat from carbs, weight from glycogen but not fat.

Heavy intake of carbs directly around workouts and as little as is comfortable otherwise, if weight loss while maintaining performance is desired, as is/should be the cause with most.

Carb back loading - what a pile of bull.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Always talking about the average person. If you read more carefully you'd have seen this.

It's really simple - sugar increases blood sugar while fat does not. Sugar makes you fat.

Ill be more concise for you, this is directly from my previous post, which you tried to answer -
'Don't make a statement with no rationale, such as fat doesn't make you fat, carbs are evil or whatever. Don't mention carbs at all, just the reason fat doesn't make you fat. Don't send me to a book either.'

I said on't mention carbs, I asked how can eating 3,500 calories from fat not cause someone with a daily expenditure of 2,500 calories to put on weight. Could you please answer that question, not one I didn't ask.

generic2012

Bruno26 wrote: »

Carb back loading - what a pile of bull.

Perhaps, I'd probably at least agree that the benefits aren't worth the effort.