Diet Vs Safe cycling

BenEadir

rtmie wrote: »

Do you mind me asking where you did the spinning class, if it was city centre.

Not city centre I'm afraid, Westwood Leopardstown.

desertcircus

It might be a bit out of your way, but Swan in Rathmines charges 6.50 for spinning classes. Bikes are pretty new, with watt meters and SPD pedals.

harringtonp

Actually I for one would be interested if the OP kept us up to date on progress with for example a weekly report on weight, phase of diet he is in and how training is.

BenEadir

harringtonp wrote: »

Actually I for one would be interested if the OP kept us up to date on progress with for example a weekly report on weight, phase of diet he is in and how training is.

Happy to give it a go Padraig,

Here's my Phase One weight loss to date:



My long term target weight is 85kg. This is the recommended weight to a) manage my blood pressure and b) keep as little weight as possible going through my injured knee which I need to do to put off the inevitable knee replacement for as many years as possible.

So far I've lost just over 9kg in just less than 3 weeks. I've 4 more days to go in Phase One so hope to hit the 10KG mark by Monday morning.

After that the challenge (which I fully recognise) will be to stabilise my weight and continue a long slow loss until I hit 85kg. In addition to the diet I've upped my exercise regime (partly as a result of having more energy carrying less weight) and partly because I have a very strict regime of exercises and weights to do to build up the strength in my left leg (particularly my glutes) so the pain I have in my knee when walking will be minimised and I can avoid knee replacement surgery.

I'm hoping a combination of a more sustainable diet (with carbs) in Phase Two and Three along with increased exercise will enable me to settle into a more sustainable and healthier lifestyle. I'll still have a few beers and the odd sausage but overall I'm committed to a much more natural i.e. non processed diet with sugar and white flour totally cut out.

I guess time will tell. I may well hit a wall and just throw the towel in but I'm going to give it a good shot as the alternative is I turn into a fat middle aged man with no energy, a beer gut and either a permanent limp or an artificial knee. There's motivation for ya!!

BTW, this might help explain the way this diet works after the first "detox" (I know I know!!) phase:-

desertcircus

What's the scientific basis for segregating carbs and fats?

BenEadir

desertcircus wrote: »

What's the scientific basis for segregating carbs and fats?

There you go - http://bit.ly/1wpUvrb

If the info on the Livestrong website or carbsanity blogspot isn't helpful perhaps the question should be:-

"What's the scientific basis for combining carbs and fats?

Leroy42

BenEadir wrote: »

Here's my Phase One weight loss to date:



Not going to get into the debate here as I really don't have sufficient real knowledge to be able to play a part, but I know what works for me.

Anyway, whatever the pros and cons of the program you are on

that is some serious results you are getting a big well done to you. Almost 10kgs in 3 weeks in great going.

Keep it up

Jawgap

Leroy42 wrote: »

.........

Not going to get into the debate here as I really don't have sufficient real knowledge to be able to play a part, but I know what works for me.

Anyway, whatever the pros and cons of the program you are on

that is some serious results you are getting a big well done to you. Almost 10kgs in 3 weeks in great going.

Keep it up

Almost 10% weight loss in 3 weeks?

Sincerest success in your endeavours OP but I'd suggest looking at your rate of loss and giving some consideration as to whether it's a healthy rate - even if it will slow in the next few weeks.

ford2600

Jawgap wrote: »

Almost 10% weight loss in 3 weeks?

Sincerest success in your endeavours OP but I'd suggest looking at your rate of loss and giving some consideration as to whether it's a healthy rate - even if it will slow in the next few weeks.

There will be significant fluid loss due to restricting carbohydrate.

OP seems to miss that point

mickydcork

My approach to weight loss - take in less calories than you use during the week.

As for nutrition - everything in moderation.

Works for me.

QueensGael

rtmie wrote: »

Anyone used these or have an opinion?

Slightly off topic, but yes, I go to Andy's class on Thursdays, I find his classes are good for training this time of year.

BenEadir

ford2600 wrote: »

There will be significant fluid loss due to restricting carbohydrate.

OP seems to miss that point

I do Ford, honestly and I know the challenge is going to be sustainable weight loss. If the initial rapid weight loss encourages me to adopt a healthier diet and lifestyle including better/more exercise the result will be a positive one even if I end up taking a few steps back in the short term in order to take more steps forward in the long term.

BTW, I'm actually drinking more fluid (water) over the last 3 weeks than ever but I know that may not be the same as the "fluid loss" you are referring to.

What I can tell you though is that I'm not

pooing

anywhere near as often as I was. I used to be a morning and evening man regular but now I'm a once every three days man

Maybe I am full of $hit

ford2600

BenEadir wrote: »

I do Ford, honestly and I know the challenge is going to be sustainable weight loss. If the initial rapid weight loss encourages me to adopt a healthier diet and lifestyle including better/more exercise the result will be a positive one even if I end up taking a few steps back in the short term in order to take more steps forward in the long term.

BTW, I'm actually drinking more fluid (water) over the last 3 weeks than ever but I know that may not be the same as the "fluid loss" you are referring to.

What I can tell you though is that I'm not

pooing

anywhere near as often as I was. I used to be a morning and evening man regular but now I'm a once every three days man

Maybe I am full of $hit

Your own business what you eat!!

Hard to see how any diet can justifiably reduce/restrict veg at any stage. Get your veg way up, fibre is your friend. Veg is high fibre, high on nutrients but low on energy. I find it good to prevent overeating.

What you describe is one of the more common complaints with Atkins type diet.

This guy is a interesting writer on all things food related.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ie/search/label/Food%20reward

BenEadir

Thanks Ford, I'll have a read later. I'm beginning to get a graw for knowledge in relation to this stuff - fascinating what I (we) just take for granted all the time.

ford2600 wrote: »

Hard to see how any diet can justifiably reduce/restrict veg at any stage.

I don't recall veg being restricted in any way on this diet, in fact veg are actively promoted as much as possible. I hope I didn't say something misleading.

desertcircus

BenEadir wrote: »

There you go - http://bit.ly/1wpUvrb

If the info on the Livestrong website or carbsanity blogspot isn't helpful perhaps the question should be:-

"What's the scientific basis for combining carbs and fats?

A Let Me Google That For You link? You could do with reading your sources: the Livestrong section on it has no actual evidence bar the word of a practitioner of pretend medicine, while the actual expert they interview - a dietician - says it has no basis and could actually be harmful.

ford2600

BenEadir wrote: »

Thanks Ford, I'll have a read later. I'm beginning to get a graw for knowledge in relation to this stuff - fascinating what I (we) just take for granted all the time.



I don't recall veg being restricted in any way on this diet, in fact veg are actively promoted as much as possible. I hope I didn't say something misleading.

Your bacon and eggs with a little salad was where I got the idea. For adequate fibre(in absence of grains) veg should be dominating the plate on a volume basis.

Jawgap

BenEadir wrote: »

....

BTW, I'm actually drinking more fluid (water) over the last 3 weeks than ever but I know that may not be the same as the "fluid loss" you are referring to.

....

It's not just absolute loss of fluid - it's the disruption it causes to the electrolytes in your body.........and everything that goes with that.

Maybe it's ok in the short-term - everyone has different motivations and perhaps as a jump start to getting into a healthier lifestyle it might work in the short term.

Jawgap

BTW -how come it lists 'bacon' as 'unprocessed'?

Do they mean pork?

If you're losing fluid and messing around with your electrolyte balance, do you really want the nitrates / nitrites etc that's used to cure the meat?

BenEadir

desertcircus wrote: »

A Let Me Google That For You link? You could do with reading your sources: the Livestrong section on it has no actual evidence bar the word of a practitioner of pretend medicine, while the actual expert they interview - a dietician - says it has no basis and could actually be harmful.

Relax the kacks there desertcircus, a week ago I didn't appreciate not consuming carbs pre spin would have such a negative effect. Asking me for scientific proof is a bit OTT don't you think? Hense the LMGTFY as I assume your question was rhetoric.

Maybe separating carbs and fats will prove to be a waste of time or maybe it's just a glorified placebo effect i.e. those doing it would have lost weight anyway as the combined carbs and fats they are eating under the plan are healthier than their previous diet. Time will tell and if separating carbs and fat helps me maintain my weight loss and helps shift another 5-6kg without any adverse effect on me the end result will be a success even if getting there was less than scientifically approved.

BTW, you never answered my question to you. Where's the scientific proof that fats and carbs should be combined? The fact it is traditionally the case doesn't make it scientifically proven does it and vice versa ref separating them.

BenEadir

ford2600 wrote: »

Your bacon and eggs with a little salad was where I got the idea. For adequate fibre(in absence of grains) veg should be dominating the plate on a volume basis.

Veg dominates the plate for lunch and dinner. Hot pot tonight is 600g of stewing steak + loads of chopped carrots, onions, celery and leeks. No spuds though

BenEadir

Jawgap wrote: »

Maybe it's ok in the short-term - everyone has different motivations and perhaps as a jump start to getting into a healthier lifestyle it might work in the short term.

That's exactly what it is, it is only supposed to be sustained for between 5 days and 3 weeks. I'm doing the 3 weeks and have 3.5 days to go. Apart from feeling $hit on the spin last Saturday I've been fine. I'm never hungry and over the last 2.5 weeks I've done 4-5 spin classes, 30 minutes on the eliptical trainer a few times and various weights and exercises.

I'm sleeping heavily which I guess could be a sign the body is working a bit harder than normal but apart form that I'm tip top.

BenEadir

Jawgap wrote: »

BTW -how come it lists 'bacon' as 'unprocessed'

Streaky bacon with no artificial sweetners etc is all that's permitted. Regular bacon or smoked bacon including smoked streaky bacon isn't permitted.

Aldi have streaky bacon with no Dextrose etc which is what I've been using. I've been cleaning out my local Aldi of all their unsmoked streaky bacon twice a week!!

doozerie

BenEadir wrote: »

BTW, this might help explain the way this diet works after the first "detox" (I know I know!!) phase:-

I know nothing about the Harcombe diet but any diet that seems to essentially deem a particular nutrient (carbs, in this case) as being somehow so detrimental that is should be *entirely* excluded from the diet for an extended period would make me very wary. Moderating intake of the various nutrients makes sense to me, excluding one comletely for a long period is, to me, very questionable and I'd want to have a sound scientific basis for it before I'd be willing to follow such an approach.

Separately, that "handy table" is odd to me too. The "fat meals" are predominantly protein rather than fat, and include carbs (e.g. the whole milk carton in front of me has 5.8g carbs (of which sugars are 4.6g) per 100ml, "yoghurt" is a vague term at best but many yoghurts have more natural sugars than you might expect) - those carb proportions are not large, but they are certainly not zero.

Similarly, various of the foods listed as "carb meals" have notable amounts of protein in them (e.g. one sample of "brown pasta" I have here has 12.7g protein per 100g, some "brown rice" I have here has 8.9g protein per 100g).

Basically trying to break those foods exclusively into "fat meals" and "carb meals" simply doesn't work. Again, I don't know this diet so perhaps it doesn't really attempt to segregate the foods so strictly but some of your earlier posts suggest to me that it does try to do exactly that.

And don't forget either that many vegetables have carbs in them - to take a relatively extreme example, depending on what source you check carrots have between 4g and 10g carbs per 100g. It's actually quite tricky to eat a "no carb" diet, but personally I wouldn't even try it.

As regards training with no carbs, I do this regularly. My weekend training rides I do with no food intake at all from the point I stop eating the previous day to the point where I get back home again after the ride. I also don't carb-load the previous day. I started these fasted rides a year ago, shortly after I switched from a high carb diet to a low carb diet. I fully expected I'd bonk, I'd always relied heavily on carbs for immediate fuel, but I didn't bonk. A year later and I'm able to do intensive 3hr rides fasted, and I've done a few 5hr rides of moderate effort fasted too, and at no point during those rides did I ever feel on the verge of bonking. Glycogen stores explain part of that (estimated to be capable of fuelling in the region of 2 or 3 hours of moderate effort by the average person), burning fat as fuel explains the rest of it. In short, if you adjust your diet carefully over time then you can adapt your system to fuel itself largely on fat, and carbs are not necessary immediately prior to, or during, lengthy rides of low to moderate intensity.

In short, eat whatever you like, but beware of dietary advice, whether it comes with a label of "Harcombe" or something else. Be aware of what you are eating, keeping track of the nutrients works well for me, you can then tweak your diet in an informed way to see what works well for you and what doesn't. And where a diet advises that you exclude a nutrient entirely, ask why and ask whether the same intended objectives could be achieved through a less drastic (and more sustainable) route. It's a lot of things/information to try to balance, it's certainly not easy, but even the effort to analyse and understand it will leave you better informed and hopefully healthier overall.

ford2600

doozerie wrote: »

I know nothing about the Harcombe diet but any diet that seems to essentially deem a particular nutrient (carbs, in this case) as being somehow so detrimental that is should be *entirely* excluded from the diet for an extended period would make me very wary. Moderating intake of the various nutrients makes sense to me, excluding one comletely for a long period is, to me, very questionable and I'd want to have a sound scientific basis for it before I'd be willing to follow such an approach.

Separately, that "handy table" is odd to me too. The "fat meals" are predominantly protein rather than fat, and include carbs (e.g. the whole milk carton in front of me has 5.8g carbs (of which sugars are 4.6g) per 100ml, "yoghurt" is a vague term at best but many yoghurts have more natural sugars than you might expect) - those carb proportions are not large, but they are certainly not zero.

Similarly, various of the foods listed as "carb meals" have notable amounts of protein in them (e.g. one sample of "brown pasta" I have here has 12.7g protein per 100g, some "brown rice" I have here has 8.9g protein per 100g).

Basically trying to break those foods exclusively into "fat meals" and "carb meals" simply doesn't work. Again, I don't know this diet so perhaps it doesn't really attempt to segregate the foods so strictly but some of your earlier posts suggest to me that it does try to do exactly that.

And don't forget either that many vegetables have carbs in them - to take a relatively extreme example, depending on what source you check carrots have between 4g and 10g carbs per 100g. It's actually quite tricky to eat a "no carb" diet, but personally I wouldn't even try it.

As regards training with no carbs, I do this regularly. My weekend training rides I do with no food intake at all from the point I stop eating the previous day to the point where I get back home again after the ride. I also don't carb-load the previous day. I started these fasted rides a year ago, shortly after I switched from a high carb diet to a low carb diet. I fully expected I'd bonk, I'd always relied heavily on carbs for immediate fuel, but I didn't bonk. A year later and I'm able to do intensive 3hr rides fasted, and I've done a few 5hr rides of moderate effort fasted too, and at no point during those rides did I ever feel on the verge of bonking. Glycogen stores explain part of that (estimated to be capable of fuelling in the region of 2 or 3 hours of moderate effort by the average person), burning fat as fuel explains the rest of it. In short, if you adjust your diet carefully over time then you can adapt your system to fuel itself largely on fat, and carbs are not necessary immediately prior to, or during, lengthy rides of low to moderate intensity.

In short, eat whatever you like, but beware of dietary advice, whether it comes with a label of "Harcombe" or something else. Be aware of what you are eating, keeping track of the nutrients works well for me, you can then tweak your diet in an informed way to see what works well for you and what doesn't. And where a diet advises that you exclude a nutrient entirely, ask why and ask whether the same intended objectives could be achieved through a less drastic (and more sustainable) route. It's a lot of things/information to try to balance, it's certainly not easy, but even the effort to analyse and understand it will leave you better informed and hopefully healthier overall.

Your posts are never brief but always worth reading!

doozerie

ford2600 wrote: »

Your posts are never brief but always worth reading!

I have too many words in my diet, the excess just pours out into my posts. A "low word" diet is next on my list for 2015, I feel confident that the Internet will find a reputable one for me

BenEadir

OK, based on my reading of the diet literature (which is not that extensive) here are my answers as best I can give them

doozerie wrote: »

I know nothing about the Harcombe diet but any diet that seems to essentially deem a particular nutrient (carbs, in this case) as being somehow so detrimental that is should be *entirely* excluded from the diet for an extended period would make me very wary. Moderating intake of the various nutrients makes sense to me, excluding one comletely for a long period is, to me, very questionable

The diet does not exclude carbs for an extended period, the recommended period is between five days and three weeks.

doozerie wrote: »

Separately, that "handy table" is odd to me too. The "fat meals" are predominantly protein rather than fat, and include carbs (e.g. the whole milk carton in front of me has 5.8g carbs (of which sugars are 4.6g) per 100ml, "yoghurt" is a vague term at best but many yoghurts have more natural sugars than you might expect) - those carb proportions are not large, but they are certainly not zero.

See my point above, carbs are not totally excluded even in the initial "hit the reset button" period. After that the "handy table" is used as a guide but the products you refer to are defined as "very low fat" versions e.g. Natural Live unsweetend yoghurt e.g. http://www.tesco.ie/groceries/Product/Details/?id=272361052

The separation of carbs and fats is not clinically 100%, the idea is to keep them as separate as practically possible hence the handy table etc.

I appreciate the advice ref your own fasting spins and how finding a happy medium is the long term way to go. Will I stick religiously with this Harcombe Diet forever? I very much doubt it. Will I try and eat better and exercise better as a result of losing 10kg-15kg on the Harcombe diet? Absolutely!!

BenEadir

doozerie wrote: »

I have too many words in my diet, the excess just pours out into my posts. A "low word" diet is next on my list for 2015, I feel confident that the Internet will find a reputable one for me

Try the Harcombe no adjective diet, works a treat :P

doozerie

BenEadir wrote: »

The diet does not exclude carbs for an extended period, the recommended period is between five days and three weeks.

To me, five days of no carbs is a long time, I couldn't even conceive of ingesting no carbs for three weeks. I would genuinely have concerns about the medical/health implications of that. Assuming it is truly a *no* carb period, that is, it could easily actually be a *low* carb period unless you carefully keep track of what you are eating throughout.

desertcircus

BenEadir wrote: »

Relax the kacks there desertcircus, a week ago I didn't appreciate not consuming carbs pre spin would have such a negative effect. Asking me for scientific proof is a bit OTT don't you think? Hense the LMGTFY as I assume your question was rhetoric.

Maybe separating carbs and fats will prove to be a waste of time or maybe it's just a glorified placebo effect i.e. those doing it would have lost weight anyway as the combined carbs and fats they are eating under the plan are healthier than their previous diet. Time will tell and if separating carbs and fat helps me maintain my weight loss and helps shift another 5-6kg without any adverse effect on me the end result will be a success even if getting there was less than scientifically approved.

BTW, you never answered my question to you. Where's the scientific proof that fats and carbs should be combined? The fact it is traditionally the case doesn't make it scientifically proven does it and vice versa ref separating them.

The reason I may be coming across as hostile to this diet is that as far as I can see, there's no scientific or evidential basis to it whatsoever. The demand that adherents to the diet avoid carbs in the initial phase and then stick to a restrictive set of rules indefinitely afterwards might as well be tailormade for producing rapid weight loss (through fluid loss rather than fat burning) and then triggering relapse and gaining of all the weight back as people inevitably find the "no carbs and fats together" rule impossible to stick to in daily life. If I was trying to specifically engineer a diet plan that kept people buying my books and struggling to keep weight off - particularly one that people instinctively assumed was a great diet because of the drastic initial loss - I'd be hard pressed to do better than what you've outlined. It's practically guaranteed to keep people yoyoing up and down and struggling to keep to the diet.

The other, more basic problem I have with it is that it's essentially trying to monetise good health by making it seem more complicated than it really is. Losing weight isn't a complex process - you eat less food, consume less sugar and exercise more - but the endless ranks of con artists, evangelists and outright changers trying to make money off it have convinced people that losing weight is beyond them unless they pay for the experts' advice. It's a thoroughly unpleasant business, riddled with meaningless buzzwords, contradictory claims and outright bull**** (detox, toxins, immune system boosters...) and deserves to die a swift and merciless death.

I'm confrontational about this diet because all the available evidence indicates you'll most likely put all the weight back on, and blame yourself rather than the pointless and potentially harmful restrictions of the diet. Even if you stick to it forever, you'll be facing a lifetime without another bacon sandwich, and what kind of life is that? It's completely unnecessary, complicates a simple process, almost guarantees relapse and has no evidential basis whatsoever.

Jawgap

BenEadir wrote: »

Streaky bacon with no artificial sweetners etc is all that's permitted. Regular bacon or smoked bacon including smoked streaky bacon isn't permitted.

Aldi have streaky bacon with no Dextrose etc which is what I've been using. I've been cleaning out my local Aldi of all their unsmoked streaky bacon twice a week!!

Bacon is bacon - it's brined or salted pork. Streaky bacon isn't a different recipe - it's a different cut, usually the belly of pig, which tends to be a bit fattier than back bacon.

BenEadir

desertcircus wrote: »

Even if you stick to it forever, you'll be facing a lifetime without another bacon sandwich, and what kind of life is that?

The diet recognises that from time to time you'll want to have a bit of a blow out e.g. over Xmas or whilst on holiday etc so there is no "never" for anything. If I really want a bacon sambo (thanks for putting that in my head!) I can have one but if I get too far away from the plan as I will probably do on holiday in France (can't go to France and not enjoy their lovely breads) then at the end of the blowout you go back to phase one for five days to hit the reset button and get back on the plan thereafter.

I have not eaten my last bacon sandwich!

BenEadir

Jawgap wrote: »

Bacon is bacon - it's brined or salted pork. Streaky bacon isn't a different recipe - it's a different cut, usually the belly of pig, which tends to be a bit fattier than back bacon.

No issue with any of that but Aldi streaky bacon fires not have Dextrose listed as an ingredient and all other cuts/styles do.

Jawgap

BenEadir wrote: »

No issue with any of that but Aldi streaky bacon fires not have Dextrose listed as an ingredient and all other cuts/styles do.

The amount of sugar added is fairly minimal - it's usually added as a 'syrup' or in granulated form to provided colour and/ or an element of flavour.

Your still getting the nitrates and nitrites - and I don't see how it can be called anything other than processed. Plus streaky bacon is the fattiest cut - and it's about 10 cals/g fat, mostly saturated and monounsaturated fats.

Don't get me wrong I love bacon, especially crispy - but from a scientific perspective I wouldn't take seriously any diet that allows you eat, by the sound of it, as much bacon as you want and even at that steers you away from the leanest cuts.

Also, tinned fish is not 'unprocessed' neither is salted fish which can have salt contents over 10%. Or put in another way, only about 60g of some of the foods suggested on the list could put you over the top for your recommended daily salt / sodium intake.

Jawgap

I'd also steer away from the olive oil. It's better than most cooking oils but something like rapeseed, grapeseed or walnut oils have better fats profile.

Ole Rodrigo

Bacon and nitrates - interesting

ford2600

Jawgap wrote: »

I'd also steer away from the olive oil. It's better than most cooking oils but something like rapeseed, grapeseed or walnut oils have better fats profile.

Was are rapeseed, grapessed and walnut better than olive oil?

Nitrates etc I agree on but was are lean cuts better/healthier than fat cuts?

Jawgap

ford2600 wrote: »

Was are rapeseed, grapessed and walnut better than olive oil?

Nitrates etc I agree on but was are lean cuts better/healthier than fat cuts?

More polyunsaturated fats - the 'good' fats.

Generally, I was always led to believe that the consumption of animal fats should be avoided, but not completely eliminated from the diet.

Incidentally - this week's New Scientist leads with an article on meat - "Let them eat steak: How to eat meat the healthy way"

Basically it all comes back to the same mantra - everything in moderation.......even, occasionally, moderation!

harringtonp

BenEadir wrote: »

BTW, you never answered my question to you. Where's the scientific proof that fats and carbs should be combined? The fact it is traditionally the case doesn't make it scientifically proven does it and vice versa ref separating them.

I combine them for convenience though gut reaction would be separate is best and that is only again because of CAVEMAN. He didn't live very long as pointed out earlier but a lot of evolution went into adapting him best for his natural eating habits... you know a pile of meat together after a kill, a gorging of berries or fruit when in season

harringtonp

Food Sheets are great when trying to bring your weight because when you have to write something down you'll think twice about consuming it.

Attached is what I ate and drank last week, its not a diet, just me struggling between the forces of sugar addiction and a desire to be able to hang on to the coattails of those skinnyy juniors come March.

P+R = porridge and raisins, half milk and water
R+T, Ry +T = ryvita and tuna with some coleslaw/humus mixed in, one tin of tuna usually downed Mon-Fri
F+N is usually raisins and nuts
whey is 30g of protein (Gold Standard Whey)

Highlighted yellow are the things I left I caved in on a little

Jawgap

harringtonp wrote: »

I combine them for convenience though gut reaction would be separate is best and that is only again because of CAVEMAN. He didn't live very long as pointed out earlier but a lot of evolution went into adapting him best for his natural eating habits... you know a pile of meat together after a kill, a gorging of berries or fruit when in season

Seriously - the whole Paleo-diet thing is another faddy McFad diet from Doctor O'Fad who got a PhD (he's not a medical doctor) from Fadsville university!

It's another diet that rails against carbs (it also encourages people to exclude whole grains and legumes from their diet).

The problem with the 'caveman' diet is that (a) we're not cavemen/women - the stresses in our life our different, the environment is completely different (we live in far greater population densities for example) and we're genetically different and (b) malnutrition killed off a lot of cave people.

Finally a lot of these high protein / low carb diets are environmentally damaging - if you're in to that sort of thing.

Ole Rodrigo

harringtonp wrote: »

I combine them for convenience though gut reaction would be separate is best and that is only again because of CAVEMAN. He didn't live very long as pointed out earlier but a lot of evolution went into adapting him best for his natural eating habits... you know a pile of meat together after a kill, a gorging of berries or fruit when in season

If you mean average lifespan, yes it was short. However ' Cavemen ' , or pre agrarian humans were genetically programmed for the same longetivity as modern humans. They just had to navigate through a larger number of things that would kill them.

desertcircus

harringtonp wrote: »

I combine them for convenience though gut reaction would be separate is best and that is only again because of CAVEMAN. He didn't live very long as pointed out earlier but a lot of evolution went into adapting him best for his natural eating habits... you know a pile of meat together after a kill, a gorging of berries or fruit when in season

Given that mixing both carbs and fats is the default setting in more or less every cuisine on earth, the appropriate question is to ask why segregating them is necessary - just like any other change to the default. If you argue that we should all eat fifty oranges a day, saying "where's the evidence that we shouldn't?" is a worthless argument.

As for the claim itself: having flicked through the claims I can locate, there seems to be no empirical evidence, or even a theoretical explanation. For separating carbs and fats to be beneficial for weight loss, there needs to be a concrete explanation of how the mechanisms involved in digestion are changed by the presence of both fats and carbohydrates, and evidence that the change results in weight gain compared to segregating them. I've found no such explanation, except the claim that the different digestive enzymes interfere with each other and prevent each other from working properly.

There are two problems with this: one, there's no basis for this claim, which should be incredibly simple to test, and two, if segregating carbs and fats allowed the different enzymes to work more efficiently and extract maximum benefit from the food, then doing it would result in increased weight, not decreased. The mechanism being touted, if it was real, would do the exact opposite of what's being claimed. It's junk science designed to medicalise a non-medical issue and make it harder for people to achieve sustainable weight loss.

12 sprocket

From an American Government consumer Dept

Wouldn’t it be nice if you could lose weight simply by taking a pill, wearing a patch, or rubbing in a cream? Unfortunately, claims that you can lose weight without changing your habits just aren’t true.
Doctors, dieticians, and other experts agree that the best way to lose weight is to eat fewer calories and be more active. That's true even for people taking FDA-approved pills to help them lose weight. For most people, a reasonable goal is to lose about a pound a week, which means:
· cutting about 500 calories a day from your diet
· eating a variety of nutritious foods
· exercising regularly
For more on healthy eating, visit Nutrition.gov, ChooseMyPlate.gov, or the Weight-control Information Network.





http://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0061-weighing-claims-diet-ads#thetruth

uphillonly

doozerie wrote: »

Similarly, various of the foods listed as "carb meals" have notable amounts of protein in them (e.g. one sample of "brown pasta" I have here has 12.7g protein per 100g, some "brown rice" I have here has 8.9g protein per 100g).

Basically trying to break those foods exclusively into "fat meals" and "carb meals" simply doesn't work. Again, I don't know this diet so perhaps it doesn't really attempt to segregate the foods so strictly but some of your earlier posts suggest to me that it does try to do exactly that.

And don't forget either that many vegetables have carbs in them - to take a relatively extreme example, depending on what source you check carrots have between 4g and 10g carbs per 100g. It's actually quite tricky to eat a "no carb" diet, but personally I wouldn't even try it.

As regards training with no carbs, I do this regularly. My weekend training rides I do with no food intake at all from the point I stop eating the previous day to the point where I get back home again after the ride. I also don't carb-load the previous day. I started these fasted rides a year ago, shortly after I switched from a high carb diet to a low carb diet. I fully expected I'd bonk, I'd always relied heavily on carbs for immediate fuel, but I didn't bonk. A year later and I'm able to do intensive 3hr rides fasted, and I've done a few 5hr rides of moderate effort fasted too, and at no point during those rides did I ever feel on the verge of bonking. Glycogen stores explain part of that (estimated to be capable of fuelling in the region of 2 or 3 hours of moderate effort by the average person), burning fat as fuel explains the rest of it. In short, if you adjust your diet carefully over time then you can adapt your system to fuel itself largely on fat, and carbs are not necessary immediately prior to, or during, lengthy rides of low to moderate intensity.

Doozerie - just curious, what are the benefits of this over having some porridge pre-ride?

Is is forcing a fat burn & not something you'd need to continue if you were already at race weight?

ford2600

Jawgap wrote: »

More polyunsaturated fats - the 'good' fats.

Generally, I was always led to believe that the consumption of animal fats should be avoided, but not completely eliminated from the diet.

Incidentally - this week's New Scientist leads with an article on meat - "Let them eat steak: How to eat meat the healthy way"

Basically it all comes back to the same mantra - everything in moderation.......even, occasionally, moderation!

Good and bad in relation to fats isn't really helpful(or cholesterol for that matter). The only fats there is good science to purposefully avoid are trans fats.

Once you get your essential fatty acids on board, how are polyunsaturated more beneficial than than monounsaturated or saturated? From my reading as a fuel source monounsaturated and saturated are preferable.

As an aside the marketing of omega fatty acids like there is something magical about them, hasn't helped either.

As for avoiding saturated, the Cochrane institute among others have found no link between saturated fat and heart disease. (As an exercise look at heart disease in France/Switzerland as against Ukraine and their relative saturated fat consumption)

The human body is incredibly adaptable to diets with widely varying macro nutrient content. How anyone can state what is optimum for an entire population is beyond me; yet that's what has been presented to us for years.

On meat, assuming it decent quality( grass fed not the pork, bacon and poultry sold), I wouldn't worry too much about health effects. There are plenty studies showing higher levels of cancer/ cvd etc but I've yet to see one which controlled for lifestyle choice known to increase risk smoking, excessive alcohol etc. An anti hflc writer Anthony Coplo has written a good article on it.

ford2600

uphillonly wrote: »

Doozerie - just curious, what are the benefits of this over having some porridge pre-ride?

Is is forcing a fat burn & not something you'd need to continue if you were already at race weight?

Can't speak for doozerie but I don't do it do drop fat. My reasons would be

Forcing body to adapt to fat so as to cycle with very little need to eat, even on really long cycles

Convenience; alarm clock going off to being on bike in 15mins including coffe

For 4/5 hrs no loss in performance and ditto for 3hrs higher intensity on mtb. Might even have slight edge when fasted as no energy wasted metabolising food.

Most places which are convenient to eat when out on bike, sell predominantly crap food irrespective of macro breakdown.

The feast over about two hours when I return home!

BenEadir

Fair Play Padraig, that's impressive.

I used www.myfitnesspal.com app on my phone a few years ago and found it very useful for keeping a basic track of calories. If you're trying to limit calories to a certain figure to maintain a steady weight loss it is very useful and I found most products I purchase in supermarkets are on there.

If I find the whole "keep carbs and fats" separate thing unmanageable I would happily switch back to a calorie limited diet and use MFP to keep some manners on myself. The only issue I had with MFP is I felt it over calculated the number of calories you burnt off exercising which led to a a situation where you could easily over eat/drink on a given day relative to your true target.

If you have a smartphone it's definitely worth a try, I'd use it far quicker than keeping a manual paper based diet record.

petethedrummer

ford2600 wrote: »

Forcing body to adapt to fat so as to cycle with very little need to eat, even on really long cycles

Training fasted or with limited carbohydrate is supposed to increase mitochondrial density in the muscles. Don't have any sources to hand. easily googleable.

coppinger

+1 on myfitnesspal.com or some sort of phone food diary, helped me lose 5kg's

petethedrummer

Jawgap wrote: »

Seriously - the whole Paleo-diet thing is another faddy McFad diet from Doctor O'Fad who got a PhD (he's not a medical doctor) from Fadsville university!

It's another diet that rails against carbs (it also encourages people to exclude whole grains and legumes from their diet).

You can have a listen @47:25 where arguably the two leading Paleo exponents do NOT bash carbs.

http://robbwolf.com/2015/01/13/episode-253-chris-kresser-red-meat-again-and-neu5gc/