Slowing down at 40

harr

Ok,sorry if this has been discussed before but has anybody found that at around 40 your metabolism slows right down....I was always one to carry an extra few pounds but never had problems getting rid of my extra weight with a couple of hard months work in the gym... Recently I put up an unwanted stone and a half in weight just by being lazy...so I get back into working out hard but this time round I am struggling to loose even a pound a week..diet is good as I am determined to shift the weight..but it seems so much harder this time around... Anyone else find the same ?

Just to add I am helthy and my doctor has run bloods and nothing causing the slow down on that front..

Sam Kade

Are you a man or a woman?

harr

Hi ,
yes sorry probably a important bit of info alright, I am Male 41

PowerToWait

It's a fair bit. 21 pounds of lard isn't going to fall off that fast. Could take 6 months and likely more.

Alf Veedersane

There are two scenarios regarding your diet but they both ultimately arrive at you needing to get a handle on your calorie intake and then reducing it. You won't burn your way through the calories to get yourself in enough of a deficit to lose weight to any great degree.

harr

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

There are two scenarios regarding your diet but they both ultimately arrive at you needing to get a handle on your calorie intake and then reducing it. You won't burn your way through the calories to get yourself in enough of a deficit to lose weight to any great degree.

Diet is good always is when I get back into the swing of things, just frustrating I always could loose a stone in about 4 or 5 weeks that was a few years ago ...I know the number on the scales is not the be all of things...but with the effort I am putting in ...I taught I should be seeing better results both in weight loss and body appearance...I use my fitness pal app just to make sure I am keeping on top of my recommend protein,carb and fat intake...

Alf Veedersane

harr wrote: »

Diet is good always is when I get back into the swing of things, just frustrating I always could loose a stone in about 4 or 5 weeks that was a few years ago ...I know the number on the scales is not the be all of things...but with the effort I am putting in ...I taught I should be seeing better results both in weight loss and body appearance...I use my fitness pal app just to make sure I am keeping on top of my recommend protein,carb and fat intake...

Not your calorie intake?

harr

Goes without saying calorie intake as well...and I don't eat back my calories I burn off...I eat 1500 calories a day ..which some might say is to little but in that 1500 calories I do make sure I get my recommend fat,carbs and protein...I train five to six days a week and it's not a chore I enjoy my workouts ...my fitness level has improved greatly over the last while so that a good thing..

Alf Veedersane

harr wrote: »

Goes without saying calorie intake as well...and I don't eat back my calories I burn off...I eat 1500 calories a day ..which some might say is to little but in that 1500 calories I do make sure I get my recommend fat,carbs and protein...I train five to six days a week and it's not a chore I enjoy my workouts ...my fitness level has improved greatly over the last while so that a good thing..

I just meant in the context that people track some macros without really being conscious of their calorie intake.

harr

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I just meant in the context that people track some macros without really being conscious of their calorie intake.

I know what you are saying I see loads of people eating healthy but consuming a huge amount of calories....my sister for example was eating great and jogging every day but could not loose the weight.....turns out someone gave her a recipe for helthy granola bars ...she was eating 3 or 4 of these a day but while the ingredients were on the helthy side each bar had 320 calories and she was snaking on these... 😳

Zillah

I find it very hard to believe you are eating 1500 calories per day as well as working out five or six days a week and not losing weight.

I don't think you're being dishonest but there has to be some serious miscalculations there. You say you enjoy your workouts...that's a red flag too. If you were really eating so little your workouts would be an exhausting chore. Are you weighing your food as part of putting it in to MyFitnessPal? Are there are other potential calorie sources you're not counting (snacks, drinks, booze)?

Something's not right there - a "slow metabolism" doesn't account for that. If you did have a metabolism running so slow that you could survive on 1500 per day without losing weight, you'd barely be able to get up in the morning, let alone workout most days of the week.

harr

Zillah wrote: »

I find it very hard to believe you are eating 1500 calories per day as well as working out five or six days a week and not losing weight.

I don't think you're being dishonest but there has to be some serious miscalculations there. You say you enjoy your workouts...that's a red flag too. If you were really eating so little your workouts would be an exhausting chore. Are you weighing your food as part of putting it in to MyFitnessPal? Are there are other potential calorie sources you're not counting (snacks, drinks, booze)?

Something's not right there - a "slow metabolism" doesn't account for that. If you did have a metabolism running so slow that you could survive on 1500 per day without losing weight, you'd barely be able to get up in the morning, let alone workout most days of the week.

No booze,no unhealthy snacks....only snacks I have are fruit or nuts/seeds and maybe a yoghurt all are portion controlled and weighed if needed...
I don't find 1500 calories restrictive at all and can easily live on that ....i do weights one day and a fitness class the other mostly spinning or hiit ..
The calories I am eating and the training I do has worked in the past for me that's why I can't understand what the issue is this time around...
It's a mystery to me how I am not shifting the weight ...even if I never went to gym my calories in and calories burned should be enough for me to shift the weight....the thing is, like you I never believed other people who would tell me they can't shift the weight...and like you I would be sceptical of what they were eating...

harr

Typical days food

Porridge or two slices of whole meal toast with a hard boiled egg or some avocado

Mid morning.... Piece of fruit (Banana)

Lunch.... Pre prepared chicken with sweet potato and veg and a coffee

Mid afternoon.... Small Greek yogurt with maybe some almonds

Dinner.... Chicken or tuna with salad or veg ... No sauce dressing would be lemon juice and cider vinegar and herbs

After gym would be a protein shake ...

Sheep in a field

harr wrote: »

Typical days food

Porridge or two slices of whole meal toast with a hard boiled egg or some avocado

Mid morning.... Piece of fruit (Banana)

Lunch.... Pre prepared chicken with sweet potato and veg and a coffee

Mid afternoon.... Small Greek yogurt with maybe some almonds

Dinner.... Chicken or tuna with salad or veg ... No sauce dressing would be lemon juice and cider vinegar and herbs

After gym would be a protein shake ...

Sounds pretty healthy. How many calories in that protein shake?

Can you fit in an hours walk or jog in the morning as well as your other workouts?

What about trying hiit sessions, bootcamp or crossfit, something along those lines

Dtp1979

How much porridge too

Sheep in a field

Dtp1979 wrote: »

How much porridge too

True, massive huge incredible difference between what you can fit in the bigger bowls and the Smaller ones.

15cm bowls are nice and small so you have a sensible portion.

harr

Porridge is 40g made with water a teaspoon of honey....protein shake is 105 calories again made with water....I do hiit twice a week and spinning twice a week....on one day I do hiit early morning and spinning that evening...

What ht & wt are you?

harr

Augeo wrote: »

What ht & wt are you?

I am 5'7 and 13 stone ...I have lost just over a pound in weight in the last 3 weeks .... That has been with the above diet and training plan ... That's why I paid a visit to my GP who said I was healthy apart from being a little over weight.
Just to add I don't do cheat days or meals at this stage ...if I were to loose weight at a normal pace ..I would be happy having a cheat meal once a week.

flowerific

I'm not an expert or anything but I find when I first start to train, the weight doesn't start to come off for weeks. Instead I tend to stay the same weight but tone up. You might be retaining water as your muscles are being worked on and swelling a bit. Also the body can get used to the calories you put in. I find the 5:2 diet works best for me.

harr

flowerific wrote: »

I'm not an expert or anything but I find when I first start to train, the weight doesn't start to come off for weeks. Instead I tend to stay the same weight but tone up. You might be retaining water as your muscles are being worked on and swelling a bit. Also the body can get used to the calories you put in. I find the 5:2 diet works best for me.

Thanks for that, it does sound like I need to tweak my diet or training I will look into the 5:2 diet see if it would suit me...

harr

harr wrote: »

I am 5'7 and 13 stone .........

Press ups, pull ups, chin ups, shoulder press, bench press, squats, dips etc largely body weight exercises (or using weights 60/70%+ of BW for BP and squatts) would be what I would do for your weight days.

Not saying that you do, but most people who do "weight training" just mess about with some dumb bells in a fairly pointless fashion.

If you can do 3 sets of 10 chin ups, pull ups,50/60 press ups, BP & squat over your own BW etc disregard my comment

Sheep in a field

I like to go for a long walk as well as training, doesn't burn huge calories but better than nothing and fresh air and also...its time spent away from the temptations of the kitchen :eek:

harr

Augeo wrote: »

Press ups, pull ups, chin ups, shoulder press, bench press, squats, dips etc largely body weight exercises (or using weights 60/70%+ of BW for BP and squatts) would be what I would do for your weight days.

Not saying that you do, but most people who do "weight training" just mess about with some dumb bells in a fairly pointless fashion.

If you can do 3 sets of 10 chin ups, pull ups,50/60 press ups, BP & squat over your own BW etc disregard my comment

Can do the chip ups, pull ups and squats but a bit off on doing the 50/60 press ups ...

harr

harr wrote: »

Can do the chip ups, pull ups and squats but a bit off on doing the 50/60 press ups ...

Keep at it so
Try weighted chin ups and dips etc and/or do reps to failure x2 rather than 3 sets of 10s or whatever it is you can do at the moment.

Chin ups, pull ups, dips and press ups to failure will yield results as you will be burning more as you'll be draining resources.

harr

Augeo wrote: »

Keep at it so
Try weighted chin ups and dips etc and/or do reps to failure x2 rather than 3 sets of 10s or whatever it is you can do at the moment.

Chin ups, pull ups, dips and press ups to failure will yield results as you will be burning more as you'll be draining resources.[/QUOTE
Appreciate the advice ...I will take it on board and will push the reps up a notch ....👍🏻

cmyk

harr wrote: »

Goes without saying calorie intake as well...and I don't eat back my calories I burn off...I eat 1500 calories a day ..which some might say is to little but in that 1500 calories I do make sure I get my recommend fat,carbs and protein...I train five to six days a week and it's not a chore I enjoy my workouts ...my fitness level has improved greatly over the last while so that a good thing..

How are you determining your recommended fat/carbs/protein?

Alf Veedersane

Augeo wrote: »

Keep at it so
Try weighted chin ups and dips etc and/or do reps to failure x2 rather than 3 sets of 10s or whatever it is you can do at the moment.

Chin ups, pull ups, dips and press ups to failure will yield results as you will be burning more as you'll be draining resources.

Draining resources isn't necessarily a positive. And keeping a rep in the tank means you're mote likely to get more out of your subsequent sets and get more overall volume in there.

Failure on the last set is fine but not every set.

Alf Veedersane

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Draining resources isn't necessarily a positive. And keeping a rep in the tank means you're mote likely to get more out of your subsequent sets and get more overall volume in there.

Failure on the last set is fine but not every set.

Indeed, however in the spirit of shocking the body it's worth the OP trying imo.
He seems to be quite strong etc so I reckon he's after plateauing to an extent, 2 sets to failure with a rest inbetween or what you suggest is worth trying too. Alternate every week or whatever for a month.

Mix it up sort of approach.

harr

cmyk wrote: »

How are you determining your recommended fat/carbs/protein?

Staff at gym who seem to know what they are talking about ,plus recommendations on the my fitness pal app ....Currently it's 30 fat , 30 protein and 40 carbs or as close as I can get to that..

Alf Veedersane

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, however in the spirit of shocking the body it's worth the OP trying imo.
He seems to be quite strong etc so I reckon he's after plateauing to an extent, 2 sets to failure with a rest inbetween or what you suggest is worth trying too. Alternate every week or whatever for a month.

Mix it up sort of approach.

You don't need to 'shock' the body though. You can change the workload without needing to go to failure every set. Upping volume smartly is never too bad an idea. Or keeping volume the same but cutting the rests.

j@utis

I think you're eating too little. According to one BMR calculator online "You have a BMR of 1771.96". You should be eating at least that. Starvation mode isn't the best way to loose body fat. Your metabolism stars slowing down after about a week when calorie deficit is too great. You might be going to gym in the evening but the rest of the day you're less active that you used to be before without even noticing that - it's the way body is conserving the energy - and you end up with burning less calorie that you might think.
Also if you don't see desired results with 30/30/40 ratio, try tweaking it around e.g. reducing carbs while increasing fat, etc. you need less carbs on your non-cardio days, and so on.

I've changed my diet up big time after listening to a bunch of stuff over the last few months. I realise I will piss off a bunch of people with my recommedations but I challenge anyone to do it who wants weight loss and to maintain good shape. After trying it come back and tell me it ain't so, because I have tried it and see the results, and am very happy.

- Get rid of as much carbs as you can and the weight will drop off in no time. Obviously thats very hard as carbs are so tasty but they inflame you and make you hold water.
I eat one large meal a day, high in fat, low in carbs. I make a green juice with apples, and have a bit of fruit like a grapefruit or a melon in the evening. I don't get the hunger pangs because I don't have the sugar dump from the carbs complex or not complex. Yes I have fruit but it doens't seem to have the same effect as pasta, spuds, rice, breads. My body handles fruit much better.
The body needing carbs for energy is a total myth. Our body will happily burn fat instead for energy. Plenty of new science out there for it - http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/mark-sisson this guy talks about ketogenic and if you listen to Dr Ronda Patricks podcast theres some very interesting scientists on there that have done different dietary experiments. 24 day water fast, with all vital signs perfect after it etc.
The body doesn't need breakfast lunch and dinner, another myth. Fasting is good for the body. When we are addicted to food this is why we get hungry when we don;t have it, because we are having withdrawal symptoms. I challenge anyone to kick most of the carbs out of their diet for a couple of weeks eat a large meal a day, forget breakfast and see how they feel, and how hunger doesn't bother you anymore. The only time I get hungry now is if I have eaten something heavy in carbs the night before then I wake up starving.
This huge breakfast your having is basically a load of sugar in the morning, inflaming your body and making you hold water. Get rid of it. Breakfast is not the most important meal of the day, we have just been conditioned to believe it. I grew up eating cornflakes - ****e processed carbs, and toast - ****e brennans bread sugar. Poisoning my body a little bit every morning. Thinking has changed a bit but its changing more, and the podcasts i've been listening to lately have opened my eyes to a lot of the dietary myths. Practicing and seeing is very satisfying.
While oats and wholemeal toast might not be poison they are basically sugar thats how your body will process it when it breaks down, as sugar. You don't need a bunch of sugar every morning. The first few days might be hard without it as your body adjusts, but if you haven't had a bunch of carbs the night before, you wont be starving in the morning. And without the heavy carb load for breakfast you won't be starving at lunchtime either.
Today I had a large meal at 5pm, pork ribs and pork souvlaki, 2 small slices of fresh brown bread. I wasn't starving either by 5 - and that was after getting up at 8 working, going to the gym for half an hour around 2.30pm and running a few k's. Give it a shot, within a week I'm pretty sure you'll see a big difference.

Alf Veedersane

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The body needing carbs for energy is a total myth. Our body will happily burn fat instead for energy.

Not really. It depends on what you do as regards exercise. That's why the majority of high level athletes don't have a low carbohydrate intake.

But that's not to say low carb doesn't work for people. Just needs to be done bearing in mind what you're fuelling yourself for.

Augeo

Augeo wrote: »

Indeed, however in the spirit of shocking the body it's worth the OP trying imo.
He seems to be quite strong etc so I reckon he's after plateauing to an extent, 2 sets to failure with a rest inbetween or what you suggest is worth trying too. Alternate every week or whatever for a month.

Mix it up sort of approach.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You don't need to 'shock' the body though. You can change the workload without needing to go to failure every set. Upping volume smartly is never too bad an idea. Or keeping volume the same but cutting the rests.

Did you miss where I agreed what you suggested was worth trying or do I after to agree 100% with your view?

Going to failure for two sets instead of doing 3 sets of 10/12 is a valid and useful technique/strategy.

Alf Veedersane

Augeo wrote: »

Did you miss where I agreed what you suggested was worth trying or do I after to agree 100% with your view?

Going to failure for two sets instead of doing 3 sets of 10/12 is a valid and useful technique/strategy.

There's no need to be sensitive about it.

There are better ways of getting more work in is all I'm saying. I'm not saying my way is the only way. I'm just saying that while two sets of failure has its place, there are other ways to alow the OP to get more work in and a better response.

harr

Don't really want to cut carbs completely...most I do eat is from veg or my porridge/ wholewheat bread for my breakfast...I honestly don't think I could put in the effort I currently do without someone carbs..I know people don't necessarily need breakfast but I find myself getting very hungry around 11 if I don't have some breakfast...and I do know hunger is bad ..well for me anyway..
While I do see the theory behind eliminating carbs and it probably would work for me if I was consuming a higher about of carbs in my diet.
I do probably need to eat more calories,but I am nervous about upping my food intake ...

cmyk

harr wrote: »

Staff at gym who seem to know what they are talking about ,plus recommendations on the my fitness pal app ....Currently it's 30 fat , 30 protein and 40 carbs or as close as I can get to that..

Are you sure they recommended that setup along with 1500cals?

harr wrote: »

Don't really want to cut carbs completely...most I do eat is from veg or my porridge/ wholewheat bread for my breakfast...I honestly don't think I could put in the effort I currently do without someone carbs..I know people don't necessarily need breakfast but I find myself getting very hungry around 11 if I don't have some breakfast...and I do know hunger is bad ..well for me anyway..
While I do see the theory behind eliminating carbs and it probably would work for me if I was consuming a higher about of carbs in my diet.
I do probably need to eat more calories,but I am nervous about upping my food intake ...

Agreed, cutting out carbs completely is just another form of extreme dieting and to be honest you're already down that rabbit hole if you're consuming 1500cals daily.

Having said that, I'm with most others on this thread, I don't think you're eating a true daily 1500. You might be able to do it for a short period but ultimately you'll binge at the weekends or graze between meals during the day, or maybe unbeknownst to you, they'll start creeping up. How long do you think you've been eating at that level?

Alf Veedersane

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

The body needing carbs for energy is a total myth. Our body will happily burn fat instead for energy.

Not really. It depends on what you do as regards exercise. That's why the majority of high level athletes don't have a low carbohydrate intake.

But that's not to say low carb doesn't work for people. Just needs to be done bearing in mind what you're fuelling yourself for.

Have a listen to that podcast, and the latest on on Ronda Patricks show. According to those guys the body processes fats for energy more efficiently then it does carbs. Getting in a ketogenic state is the optimum method to use energy. Its just very hard to get there and would be huge discipline.
The main issue with carbs is that they are sugars. Yes we can process sugars for energy and almost everybody on the planet does. But our body processing sugars causes inflammation, we retain water, get bloated. Everybody knows that bloated feeling - next time relate it to what you have eaten. Inflammation generally leads to illness. Fat can be fuel as well and this is the misconception the latest studies are trying to debunk.

One study tested 3 people, one on proteins, one on fats and one on carbs @ 2000 calories a day for a few weeks. Protein lost a little weight, fats lost more weight, and carbs gained weight. Body does not like sugar. Even the face gets bloated and holds water from sugars.

I remember being in vermont a couple of years ago and doing a husky sled ride. The huskies are only fed on bowls of fat. It got me thinking that if thats all they need for all their energy to run miles and miles, why wouldn't humans be able to process fat into energy too. 2 years later listening to the latest studies, I firmly believe it now.

To the OP talking about getting hungry at 11, as I said I don't get hungry anymore unless I have a load of carbs. If your willing to try it you'll see the results. Not willing to give up the bowl of sugar in the morning, and the bread - more sugar, as soon as your body processes that you'll get hungry at 11. Then you have more sugar for your snack, and then your starving by lunchtime again. Try eating a meal high in fat for dinner and low in carbs and see how you are the next morning.

cmyk

Deleted User wrote: »

I've changed my diet up big time after listening to a bunch of stuff over the last few months. I realise I will piss off a bunch of people with my recommedations but I challenge anyone to do it who wants weight loss and to maintain good shape. After trying it come back and tell me it ain't so, because I have tried it and see the results, and am very happy.

Thats great, what you've done has worked for you. I've no idea how long it's worked for you or from what point you've come from but that approach can also be a complete recipe for disaster for a lot of people, especially when it comes to maintenance.

Deleted User wrote: »

Get rid of as much carbs as you can and the weight will drop off in no time. Obviously thats very hard as carbs are so tasty but they inflame you and make you hold water.

If you compare that with a more reasonable approach you're only really seeing a difference short term, with, as you've alluded to, a difference only in water weight... negated when carbs get re-introduced. And here is the crux of my argument against this approach... they will get re-introduced.

Deleted User wrote: »

Plenty of new science out there for it - http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/mark-sisson this guy talks about ketogenic and if you listen to Dr Ronda Patricks podcast theres some very interesting scientists on there that have done different dietary experiments. 24 day water fast, with all vital signs perfect after it etc.

Please don't confuse Joe Rogan and Mark Sisson for 'Science'.

Stealthfins

If you want to strip off weight buy a bodyboard,swimfins and a wetsuit.
Or take up surfing.
I find bodyboarding and paddling very good at reducing the waist after the winner,I'm 41 soon

Alf Veedersane

Deleted User wrote: »

Have a listen to that podcast, and the latest on on Ronda Patricks show. According to those guys the body processes fats for energy more efficiently then it does carbs. Getting in a ketogenic state is the optimum method to use energy. Its just very hard to get there and would be huge discipline.

Joe Rogan and Mark Sisson aren't scientists. Whatever they have done may have worked for them but don't confuse it with peer reviewed science.

Deleted User wrote: »

The main issue with carbs is that they are sugars. Yes we can process sugars for energy and almost everybody on the planet does. But our body processing sugars causes inflammation, we retain water, get bloated. Everybody knows that bloated feeling - next time relate it to what you have eaten. Inflammation generally leads to illness. Fat can be fuel as well and this is the misconception the latest studies are trying to debunk.

So this holds for everyone that eats carbs? They get bloated and ill? Ok.

Deleted User wrote: »

One study tested 3 people, one on proteins, one on fats and one on carbs @ 2000 calories a day for a few weeks. Protein lost a little weight, fats lost more weight, and carbs gained weight. Body does not like sugar. Even the face gets bloated and holds water from sugars.

The bit in bold doesn't need to be expanded on.

Deleted User wrote: »

I remember being in vermont a couple of years ago and doing a husky sled ride. The huskies are only fed on bowls of fat. It got me thinking that if thats all they need for all their energy to run miles and miles, why wouldn't humans be able to process fat into energy too.

Because humans aren't huskies?

Look, low carb works for some people. I'm not saying it doesn't. I'm saying that you need to fuel yourself appropriately and cutting carbs is counter productive when fuelling for a lot of sports (that humans engage in).

harr

I don't have a huge appetite at all and I easily manage on 1500 calories or less if I needed ...the reasons I put the weight on was eating the wrong foods and not training even when I was not watching what I was eating I was probably only consuming about 2500 or there abouts.
It's becoming clear now that I probably should be eating more , no trainer at gym never mentioned calorie intake he just asked for a run down of my diet and what foods I was eating he seemed happy enough with the food I was eating and to be honest he was more focused on my protein intake..
So the general consensus is that I should be maybe eating nearer 2000 or a bit under...the gym instructor did advice me to eat back what calories I was burning in the gym..so going by that it would bring my total up to nearer 2000..
To be honest I am also focusing on my calories to much rather than putting a bigger effort in my training..

Alf Veedersane

harr wrote: »

I don't have a huge appetite at all and I easily manage on 1500 calories or less if I needed ...the reasons I put the weight on was eating the wrong foods and not training even when I was not watching what I was eating I was probably only consuming about 2500 or there abouts.
It's becoming clear now that I probably should be eating more , no trainer at gym never mentioned calorie intake he just asked for a run down of my diet and what foods I was eating he seemed happy enough with the food I was eating and to be honest he was more focused on my protein intake..
So the general consensus is that I should be maybe eating nearer 2000 or a bit under...the gym instructor did advice me to eat back what calories I was burning in the gym..so going by that it would bring my total up to nearer 2000..
To be honest I am also focusing on my calories to much rather than putting a bigger effort in my training..

Just increase gradually until you find the sweet spot.

Im not referencing Joe Rogan as a scientist - Mark Sisson was a very knowledgeable guest who has put the theory into practice. Rogan has also put it into practice and recorded it over the last 4-6 months and discussed all the benefits.
The actual science is on the Ronda Patrick Podcast where she (a scientist) and her guests (scientists) are the ones doing the studies on this stuff. Nobody else is doing these studies, they are at the forefront of nutrition studies in science. If they are to be ignored well, thats up to you.
There have also been a number of other guests who have put this into practice and talked about the same results. Its ignorant to dismiss this stuff, and look for technicalities without practicing it. Anyone interested in health and fitness and nutrition should be willing to experiment with various techniques to see what works. Just plodding along believing the same **** thats been peddled for decades - carb loading for athletes etc, its just ignorance really. Try it and then dismiss it afterwards IF it doesn't work. Carbs won't inevitably get introduced into the diet. Sure there are days when you have them, but if you don't eat a lot of carbs for a few weeks your gut bacteria changes, and you don't crave them anymore. Its extremely easy to kick them, the only difficult part is the first few days. And its not only water weight, because the body starts burning fat instead of carbs. Read up on ketogenics.

I have put it into practice myself over the last months and its worked. Simple as that. I suggest listening to the stuff I've mentioned before dismissing it. Ive said my piece anyway, nothing else to contribute here!

I recommend listening to the Dr. Dominic D'agostino podcast here https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/foundmyfitness/id818198322?mt=2

qb123

At 5'7" and 13 Stone, it's very difficult to believe you've been eating only 1500 cals a day plus a good bit of exercise. Are you sure all the weight isn't in muscle? This could explain a bit - might be worth having a calipers fat calculation done to see how lean or otherwise you are. This could then help determine best way forward for you.

Alf Veedersane

Deleted User wrote: »

Im not referencing Joe Rogan as a scientist - Mark Sisson was a very knowledgeable guest who has put the theory into practice. Rogan has also put it into practice and recorded it over the last 4-6 months and discussed all the benefits.
The actual science is on the Ronda Patrick Podcast where she (a scientist) and her guests (scientists) are the ones doing the studies on this stuff. Nobody else is doing these studies, they are at the forefront of nutrition studies in science. If they are to be ignored well, thats up to you.
There have also been a number of other guests who have put this into practice and talked about the same results. Its ignorant to dismiss this stuff, and look for technicalities without practicing it. Anyone interested in health and fitness and nutrition should be willing to experiment with various techniques to see what works. Just plodding along believing the same **** thats been peddled for decades - carb loading for athletes etc, its just ignorance really. Try it and then dismiss it afterwards IF it doesn't work. Carbs won't inevitably get introduced into the diet. Sure there are days when you have them, but if you don't eat a lot of carbs for a few weeks your gut bacteria changes, and you don't crave them anymore. Its extremely easy to kick them, the only difficult part is the first few days. And its not only water weight, because the body starts burning fat instead of carbs. Read up on ketogenics.

I have put it into practice myself over the last months and its worked. Simple as that. I suggest listening to the stuff I've mentioned before dismissing it. Ive said my piece anyway, nothing else to contribute here!

I recommend listening to the Dr. Dominic D'agostino podcast here https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/foundmyfitness/id818198322?mt=2

I didn't dismiss it at any point. I understand the science behind it.

My point was about fuelling your body appropriately for activity. Low carb doesn't provide sufficient fuel in a lot of instances.

Alf Veedersane

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Im not referencing Joe Rogan as a scientist - Mark Sisson was a very knowledgeable guest who has put the theory into practice. Rogan has also put it into practice and recorded it over the last 4-6 months and discussed all the benefits.
The actual science is on the Ronda Patrick Podcast where she (a scientist) and her guests (scientists) are the ones doing the studies on this stuff. Nobody else is doing these studies, they are at the forefront of nutrition studies in science. If they are to be ignored well, thats up to you.
There have also been a number of other guests who have put this into practice and talked about the same results. Its ignorant to dismiss this stuff, and look for technicalities without practicing it. Anyone interested in health and fitness and nutrition should be willing to experiment with various techniques to see what works. Just plodding along believing the same **** thats been peddled for decades - carb loading for athletes etc, its just ignorance really. Try it and then dismiss it afterwards IF it doesn't work. Carbs won't inevitably get introduced into the diet. Sure there are days when you have them, but if you don't eat a lot of carbs for a few weeks your gut bacteria changes, and you don't crave them anymore. Its extremely easy to kick them, the only difficult part is the first few days. And its not only water weight, because the body starts burning fat instead of carbs. Read up on ketogenics.

I have put it into practice myself over the last months and its worked. Simple as that. I suggest listening to the stuff I've mentioned before dismissing it. Ive said my piece anyway, nothing else to contribute here!

I recommend listening to the Dr. Dominic D'agostino podcast here https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/foundmyfitness/id818198322?mt=2

I didn't dismiss it at any point. I understand the science behind it.

My point was about fuelling your body appropriately for activity. Low carb doesn't provide sufficient fuel in a lot of instances.

What if Fat provided sufficient fuel though, and fat didn't inflame your body in the process like sugars? Thats the argument behind the science.

Alf Veedersane

Deleted User wrote: »

What if Fat provided sufficient fuel though, and fat didn't inflame your body in the process like sugars? Thats the argument behind the science.

I'm talking specifically about the production of ATP, which fat can only produce through aerobic metabolism. It's fine as a fuel source where you the intensity of the exercise is low or moderate.

harr

qb123 wrote: »

At 5'7" and 13 Stone, it's very difficult to believe you've been eating only 1500 cals a day plus a good bit of exercise. Are you sure all the weight isn't in muscle? This could explain a bit - might be worth having a calipers fat calculation done to see how lean or otherwise you are. This could then help determine best way forward for you.

Had that done in gym I am just over 22% body fat...I probably would be fairly muscular underneath the lair of fat I am trying to get rid of..

Alf Veedersane

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

What if Fat provided sufficient fuel though, and fat didn't inflame your body in the process like sugars? Thats the argument behind the science.

I'm talking specifically about the production of ATP, which fat can only produce through aerobic metabolism. It's fine as a fuel source where you the intensity of the exercise is low or moderate.

Well there a lots of people doing triathlons now and long distance running in a ketogenic state. Kyle Kingsbury was another guest on the JRE, former professional fighter now doing various marathons etc with a 90% fat diet. I believe the heart rate would get up very high for that type of exercise and while it might not be explosive its definitely intensive.

I play football at a pretty decent level, last week I played a 4pm game having not eaten since the night before, was not hungry or low on energy. Before I would have always been having a big breakfast and then eating banana's etc pre game. Simply don't feel the need for it now. Surely I would be low on energy if I needed carbs to perform?
I rarely do heavy weights anymore, once a month I'll do a heavy bench of 70-80kilos which is my max, and haven't found any difficulty doing that either in terms of comparing it to previous times