Trying to Eat Better - Getting Fatter

Bruno26

kevpants wrote: »

Agreed.





Because they'll be on the bench.

No not needed.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/trade-sports-drinks-for-water-201207305079

http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-controversial-science-of-sports-drinks/260124/

Marketing works.

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

No not needed.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/trade-sports-drinks-for-water-201207305079

http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/the-controversial-science-of-sports-drinks/260124/

Marketing works.

Oh Bruno, are you joking?

The European Food Safety Authority upheld the claims that sports drinks hydrate better than water and help maintain performance during endurance exercise -- but added that this did not apply to the ordinary, light exerciser. Says Tim Noakes, Discovery health chair of exercise and sports science at Cape Town University, "They are never going to study a person who trains for two hours per week, who walks most of the marathon -- which form the majority of users of sports drinks," and the majority of people at whom sports drinks marketing is aimed.

It clearly days it hydrates better, and helps performance in athletes. Even Tim Noakes concedes that.
Of course it's unnecessary during light exercise, nobody said it was. And that's irrelevant, we are talking about sports performance.

generic2012

Poor lad can't read :-(

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

Oh Bruno, are you joking?


It clearly days it hydrates better, and helps performance in athletes. Even Tim Noakes concedes that.
Of course it's unnecessary during light exercise, nobody said it was. And that's irrelevant, we are talking about sports performance.

They must be right!

The average amateur sportsperson does not need it.

Bruno26

generic2012 wrote: »

Poor lad can't read :-(

Who? What? Elaborate.

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

They must be right!

The average amateur sportsperson does not need it.

The example Noakes used was a two hour a week exerciser who'll walk the marathon. Of course they don't need it.

But we are talking about sports performance at any sort of meaningfull level. The article says in that case it works. I think you didn't even read it.


Serious question, and this isn't "do you even..." cheap shot, but do you train/compete in any sport, or are you purely interested in diet/exercise from a weight loss/don't get fat perspective.

groovyg

chops018 wrote: »

I'm only getting a chance to look at it all now!

I didn't expect a long winded debate to happen....

Unfortunately this is the way a lot of threads in this forum end up, it reminds of forum on the letsrun website where posters often go off in tangents and end up having massive debates with one another, thus the initial point of the thread gets lost.

You might be better off making an appointment with a nutritionist/dietitian to have a look at your overall diet and see what you should eat less or more of because you ain't going to find it here. Oh and maybe read this sticky from the nutrition forum.

Alf Veedersane

groovyg wrote: »

You might be better off making an appointment with a nutritionist/dietitian to have a look at your overall diet and see what you should eat less or more of because you ain't going to find it here. Oh and maybe read this sticky from the nutrition forum.

The nutrition stickies have pretty much anything you might need to know, minus the arguments. No real need to spend the money on a dietician who will largely guide you in the same way.

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

The example Noakes used was a two hour a week exerciser who'll walk the marathon. Of course they don't need it.

But we are talking about sports performance at any sort of meaningfull level. The article says in that case it works. I think you didn't even read it.



Serious question, and this isn't "do you even..." cheap shot, but do you train/compete in any sport, or are you purely interested in diet/exercise from a weight loss/don't get fat perspective.

Before the former- always struggled with weight inspite of all the training (4-5 days a week). Eat high carb - plenty of pasta and energy drinks. Bodyfat around or over 20%

Now the latter and don't struggle with weight. Just do weights (adjustable dumbbells at home), chin ups, dips, sprints and a bit of golf. Bodyfat now around 12%.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

Before the former- always struggled with weight inspite of all the training (4-5 days a week). Eat high carb - plenty of pasta and energy drinks. Bodyfat around or over 20%

Now the latter and don't struggle with weight. Just do weights (adjustable dumbbells at home), chin ups, dips, sprints and a bit of golf. Bodyfat now around 12%.

Its great that it has worked so well for you. I just feel you need to use a little bit more critical thinking and analysis when promoting it as something everyone should do.

For instance, you understand what you are doing, in all its intricacies. However, you have quite often condensed the whole theory into the singular statement 'eat what you like, just reduce carbs' on this forum. And that, in my mind, is irresponsible. By all means promote something you believe works, but do so correctly, by linking people to resources where the strategy is laid out in more detail. The ordinary Joe here may just hear the 'eat what you like' part and fail miserably.

Naos

Bruno26 wrote: »

Before the former- always struggled with weight inspite of all the training (4-5 days a week). Eat high carb - plenty of pasta and energy drinks. Bodyfat around or over 20%

Now the latter and don't struggle with weight. Just do weights (adjustable dumbbells at home), chin ups, dips, sprints and a bit of golf. Bodyfat now around 12%.

Out of curiosity:

1) When you were eating high carb & training 4/5 times per week, roughly how many calories were you eating?

2) Currently you eat low carb & train a few times a week, roughly how many calories are you eating per day?

Alf Veedersane

Just as an aside, the number of times you go training or the amount of time you spend in a gym doesn't necessarily reflect the level of activity.

You can easily spend 2 hours in a gym and barely raise your pulse.

Brian?

groovyg wrote: »

Unfortunately this is the way a lot of threads in this forum end up, it reminds of forum on the letsrun website where posters often go off in tangents and end up having massive debates with one another, thus the initial point of the thread gets lost.

You might be better off making an appointment with a nutritionist/dietitian to have a look at your overall diet and see what you should eat less or more of because you ain't going to find it here. Oh and maybe read this sticky from the nutrition forum.

What would you have us do? It's an open discussion forum. We can only moderate the discussion so much.

As others have said, all the info the OP needs has been lovingly saved in the stickies.

jtthom

To be fair, some of the info in the stickies is debatable and of its time IMO (e.g. the push for everything wholemeal/wholewheat/wholegrain/high fibre/sweet potatoes, not your white potatoes etc).

40,40,20 - for the majority of people, this is the ideal diet. Your calorific intake each day should be made up of 40% Proteins, 40% Carbs and 20% Healthy Fats. This is a perfect formula for the physically active, as it gives you exactly what you need to support weight training and muscle gains.

Eat about every 3-4 hours - every 2-3 if you are wishing to gain weight. Prevents you from eating lots in one sitting

But there's excellent info in there too so I might be a bit harsh here.

Bruno26

Naos wrote: »

Out of curiosity:

1) When you were eating high carb & training 4/5 times per week, roughly how many calories were you eating?

2) Currently you eat low carb & train a few times a week, roughly how many calories are you eating per day?

Can't answer one. Never counted.

Now rarely eat less than 3,500 daily. I know this from using myfitnessapp in the early stages to count carbs.

I'm sure I'll be told I was eating more than now!

Brian?

jtthom wrote: »

To be fair, some of the info in the stickies is debatable and of its time IMO (e.g. the push for everything wholemeal/wholewheat/wholegrain/high fibre/sweet potatoes, not your white potatoes etc).





But there's excellent info in there too so I might be a bit harsh here.

The push for wholegrain etc. encourages eating low GI carbs. A good thing IMO.

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

The push for wholegrain etc. encourages eating low GI carbs. A good thing IMO.

2 slices wholegrain bread have a higher gi than a snickers bar.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

2 slices wholegrain bread have a higher gi than a snickers bar.

Which you learned here, right?

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

Which you learned here, right?

Here

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

Here

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

I realise this is another blind alley youre going down, but anyway. From my reading, same GI, snickers has a much higher GL.

Brian?

Bruno26 wrote: »

2 slices wholegrain bread have a higher gi than a snickers bar.

Which wholegrain bread?

Alf Veedersane

People usually use the GI comparison when comparing different types of a food.

Not sure how many people would be puttering a Snickers or two for a sandwich.


My beloved ignore function is being undone by the quote function over and over *sad face*

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

Which wholegrain bread?

any

Bruno26

Oryx wrote: »

I realise this is another blind alley youre going down, but anyway. From my reading, same GI, snickers has a much higher GL.

Correct but the poster specifically mentioned GI. Everything I said with evidence is correct regarding wholegrain bread.

Brian?

Bruno26 wrote: »

any

You're 100% sure of that?

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

You're 100% sure of that?

Yes

Brian?

Bruno26 wrote: »

Yes

So every whole grain bread, of every brand has the same GI? So you see why people get frustrated debating with you?

You deal is absolutes, the world doesn't work like that.

Bruno26

Brian? wrote: »

So every whole grain bread, of every brand has the same GI? So you see why people get frustrated debating with you?

You deal is absolutes, the world doesn't work like that.

No. Lowest gi is 51, many higher.

Mellor

Brian? wrote: »

The push for wholegrain etc. encourages eating low GI carbs. A good thing IMO.

To be fair, wholegrain breads, on average, aren't significantly lower GI that white bread. The difference between white/brown pasta/rice is equally insignificant also.

Sweet potatos are high GI than white potatos when roasted.

The previous poster was right, there's a lot of dated and incorrect info in the stickies. And a lot of the stuff that regularly touted as a fitness myth is touted there.


That said, Bruno's Snickers bar statistic is nonsense.

Bruno26 wrote: »

Here

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

That's the same table referenced in the article Oryx posted.
So either you happened to randomly find the same source data, and randomly choose a snickers (out of 100+ options) to compare to wholewheat bread.
Or you did actually get it from that same biased article but decided to cover it up. I wonder why.

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

To be fair, wholegrain breads, on average, aren't significantly lower GI that white bread. The difference between white/brown pasta/rice is equally insignificant also.




That said, Bruno's Snickers bar statistic is nonsense.

That's the same table referenced in the article Oryx posted.
So either you happened to randomly find the same source data, and randomly choose a snickers (out of 100+ options) to compare to wholewheat bread.
Or you did actually get it from that same biased article but decided to cover it up. I wonder why.

Not exactly sure what you ranting about. I was responding to someone saying wholegrain is a good thing to point out its not as good as we are led to believe.

What was wrong with the Harvard link- never saw the other link before.

Mellor

Bruno26 wrote: »

Not exactly sure what you ranting about. I was responding to someone saying wholegrain is a good thing to point out its not as good as we are led to believe.

Rant? Where?
I was saying whole grain isn't significantly different that white bread.

But taking GI in isolation as a measure of "heathiness" is pretty stupid.

What was wrong with the Harvard link- never saw the other link before.

I was pointing out that the Harvard link is also the one used in the article.

Bruno26

Mellor wrote: »

Rant? Where?
I was saying whole grain isn't significantly different that white bread.

But taking GI in isolation as a measure of "heathiness" is pretty stupid.


I was pointing out that the Harvard link is also the one used in the article.

Yes pretty much just as bad.

I didn't. Another poster said wholegrain is good.

So what was wrong with Havard link. How was the comparison of GI nonsense?

SteelyDanJalapeno

Bruno,

Any disadvantages to High fat low carb?

Bruno26

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Bruno,

Any disadvantages to High fat low carb?

Decreased profits for processed food companies and supermarkets.

Oryx

Bruno26 wrote: »

Decreased profits for processed food companies and supermarkets.

Rather than a glib reply, are there any implications for say, heart health?

Alf Veedersane

Oryx wrote: »

Rather than a glib reply, are there any implications for say, heart health?

Or for an athlete that needs a lot of ATP to be produced by glycolisis.

Or just your common-or-garden person with poor lipase production or poor bile secretion.

That's ignoring the link between people with a certain form of the apolipoprotein gene and a high-fat diet to certain diseases.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Bruno26 wrote: »

Decreased profits for processed food companies and supermarkets.

You know what I meant, surely you dont think it's a wonder diet, there's obvious disadvantages, do you know what they are?

ford2600

Oryx wrote: »

Rather than a glib reply, are there any implications for say, heart health?

Your right to ask the question. Recommending diet as a one size suits all is wrong.

As someone who eats hflc, I'm as interested as anyone as to long term effects. It suited yhe ultra endurance events I was doing, but even then I was using lots of carbs post exercise with plenty protein.

If your doing very intense training of any serious duration, then you'll need to add plenty carbs.

I don't know the reasons why, but it doesn't suit lots of people. Why you would persist with something that doesn't work in order to follow a dogmatic approach I don't know.

Noakes is an interesting/engaging person on many topics; but he had a life changing experience as a result of diet change. He seems to suggest diet is for everyone which imho is dangerous and irresponsible. His preaching and the following/cult which has built around him is not unlike a religious one; and even the most ardent believer would admit rational thought can often be a dirty word in such groups.

jtthom

I wouldn't be crazy about counting calories/macros but a quick look at that stuff tells me that I take in approx fat 55%/carbs 20%/protein 25%, take it that this is consider HFLC? Pushing carbs closer to 200g for what it's worth.

Alf Veedersane

jtthom wrote: »

I wouldn't be crazy about counting calories/macros but a quick look at that stuff tells me that I take in approx fat 55%/carbs 20%/protein 25%, take it that this is consider HFLC? Pushing carbs closer to 200g for what it's worth.

Probably too high to be considered LC.

Alf Veedersane

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

People usually use the GI comparison when comparing different types of a food.

Not sure how many people would be puttering a Snickers or two for a sandwich.


My beloved ignore function is being undone by the quote function over and over *sad face*

Someone put a script in feedback somewhere that removes all references in the quotes also and doesn't give you the notification that the ignored poster has posted


I would have thought LC would be 150g or less, even better 100 or less?

Alf Veedersane

bluewolf wrote: »

Someone put a script in feedback somewhere that removes all references in the quotes also and doesn't give you the notification that the ignored poster has posted

That's the stuff dream sequences are made of.

Alf Veedersane

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

That's the stuff dream sequences are made of.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90291041&postcount=23

jtthom

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Probably too high to be considered LC.

I've gone between 50g-100g in the past and always felt a little bit sluggish. Now that I'm a lot more active (including running three times a week) I felt the need to up my carb intake, which is usually a daily 400g portion of white potatoes soaked in butter.

Alf Veedersane

jtthom wrote: »

I've gone between 50g-100g in the past and always felt a little bit sluggish. Now that I'm a lot more active (including running three times a week) I felt the need to up my carb intake, which is usually a daily 400g portion of white potatoes soaked in butter.

Well, that's the key really. If something doesn't work for you, alter it until it does!

Bruno26

TiltedBrain wrote: »

You know what I meant, surely you dont think it's a wonder diet, there's obvious disadvantages, do you know what they are?

No. No such thing. Now I actually don't eat enough fat to be considered high fat. However eating real food is surely considered the best way to eat. For example I believe meals should be 2/3 veg and 1/3 meat / fat. Regarding disadvantages I'm sure there are some. A new book called the Big Fat Surprise addresses concerns over this way of eating. Conclusion nothing harmful eating butter, eggs, grass fed red meat, etc.

davmol

Sorry to jump in late on this thread but when you say fat,are you referrig to good sources of fat or just fat in general regardless of category ie bacon fat?

isnt there literature going round now about fat being de-demonised and all the myths being debunked of fat causing heart disease etc ?

On my iphone and couldnt be arsed to search for the studies.

Bruno26

davmol wrote: »

Sorry to jump in late on this thread but when you say fat,are you referrig to good sources of fat or just fat in general regardless of category ie bacon fat?

isnt there literature going round now about fat being de-demonised and all the myths being debunked of fat causing heart disease etc ?

On my iphone and couldnt be arsed to search for the studies.

Yes good sources of fat- butter, cream, eggs, coconut oil, avocado, meat, etc. Nothing wrong with bacon fat.

Yes lots of literature suggesting that fat is not the source of these problems.

jtthom

davmol wrote: »

Sorry to jump in late on this thread but when you say fat,are you referrig to good sources of fat or just fat in general regardless of category ie bacon fat?

isnt there literature going round now about fat being de-demonised and all the myths being debunked of fat causing heart disease etc ?

On my iphone and couldnt be arsed to search for the studies.

When I say 55% fat I'm talking the following:

Whole eggs
Butter
Double cream
Whole milk
Meat (chicken legs with skin, ground beef, ground pork)
Dark chocolate (85%)
Cocoa butter
Fish (typically sardines in olive oil)
Handful of almonds

Not sure if you were specifically asking me but anyway.

generic2012

davmol wrote: »

Sorry to jump in late on this thread but when you say fat,are you referrig to good sources of fat or just fat in general regardless of category ie bacon fat?

isnt there literature going round now about fat being de-demonised and all the myths being debunked of fat causing heart disease etc ?

On my iphone and couldnt be arsed to search for the studies.

I wouldn't say debunked, not as bad as it was once thought but still lots of evidence/reasons to believe that it shouldn't make up the bulk off your diet out there. Coming more and more to light that too many calories are unhealthy regardless of source. One of the reasons it is demonised is because it is so high in calories.

It was demonised so much before it was practically eradicated, now there is a new wave of idiots taking it to the other extreme.

Human nature: If doing this a little bit of this is good, as much as possible must be best!