Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
With so many diets out there and with each one hosting a variety of happy customers (in which everyone seems to be stating that the way they lost weight is the best diet out there) is it sometimes hard to shift through the rubbish and get down to the core of the diet.
The underlying factor in all diets is the rule of thermodynamics which states that energy in must equal energy out to create equalibrium.
Below i've put down my thoughts on several popular diets.
Diet: Clean Eating
Description: These diets promote that you can eat as much as you want of the "clean" foods and you will lose fat.
Reason: Foods on these lists are usually fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean meats and other low calorie foods. If you eat these foods you don't have to count calories because you will be eating below your maintenance level and feeling full all day.
Diet: Low fat.
Desciption: eating foods with low or no fat
Reason: for each gram of fat there is 9 calories within it. So a diet which is low in fat are reducing the amount of calories that a person takes in. By reducing calories below your maintence you will lose weight.
Diet: Low carb.
Description: eating food with low or no carbs
Reason: for each gram of carbohydrate there is 4 calories within it. So a diet which is low in carbs are reducing the amount of calories that a person takes in.
These are my thoughts and people are free to poke holes in my arguments. (i'm was just bored).
Diet: Clean Eating
Description: These diets promote that you can eat as much as you want of the "clean" foods and you will lose fat.
Reason: Foods on these lists are usually fruits and vegetables, whole grains, lean meats and other low calorie foods. If you eat these foods you don't have to count calories because you will be eating below your maintenance level and feeling full all day.
think this one is a farce you still have to maintian the equilibrium just cos you are not eating fat doesnt mean you wont get fat, you can still over indulge
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshDunn
Diet: Low fat.
Desciption: eating foods with low or no fat
Reason: for each gram of fat there is 9 calories within it. So a diet which is low in fat are reducing the amount of calories that a person takes in. By reducing calories below your maintence you will lose weight.
I suppose with this again if not counting calories if its the only change you make there will be some improvement and weight loss
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshDunn
Diet: Low carb.
Description: eating food with low or no carbs
Reason: for each gram of carbohydrate there is 4 calories within it. So a diet which is low in carbs are reducing the amount of calories that a person takes in.
Personaly am totaly anti low carb as its fuel without a good source of fuel you are looking to convert protein or use glycogen so metabolism is slower to react
As you say though its all about equilibrium and without counting calories/portions then you wont be able to adjust that equilibrium
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
"Paleo Diet for Athletes" really said it very well. Everything is a substitute for something else. If you're eating a twinkie it's not the fat or carbs that's the problem, it's a fucking twinkie. If you eat an apple not only are you eating good things, but it's INSTEAD of something else. Why is it instead...because you're freaking hungry and you're going to eat...nothing wrong with that.
The only time that the ratios really, really come into play is if you're on an extreme and you're not getting enough of something.
If you can go thru the day and can't pick out better options for what you've eaten then you're a freaking stud. If you can do that and still don't have the body you want then mabey it's time to addres macros.
"Paleo Diet for Athletes" really said it very well. Everything is a substitute for something else. If you're eating a twinkie it's not the fat or carbs that's the problem, it's a fucking twinkie. If you eat an apple not only are you eating good things, but it's INSTEAD of something else. Why is it instead...because you're freaking hungry and you're going to eat...nothing wrong with that.
The only time that the ratios really, really come into play is if you're on an extreme and you're not getting enough of something.
If you can go thru the day and can't pick out better options for what you've eaten then you're a freaking stud. If you can do that and still don't have the body you want then mabey it's time to addres macros.
The only time that the ratios really, really come into play is if you're on an extreme and you're not getting enough of something.
If you can go thru the day and can't pick out better options for what you've eaten then you're a freaking stud. If you can do that and still don't have the body you want then mabey it's time to addres macros.
Agree but thats assuming you aint just fighting the flab cos you are obese and have spent years eating badly. For the majority healthy changes will make a difference. Then when you take your training serious pay attention to macros then next stage is micros supplements and food timing not necesarily in that order (again in my opinion)
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
The point with clean eating is that it takes a boat load of food in order to get high calories.
It just seems like people are reluckent to count calories these days. I agree that its the only way to lose weight but if the portions are right and the foods are right then counting each individual calorie doesn't matter.
For people starting diets i think that they all work because they are actually thinking about what they are putting into there bodies and that is a big step towards weight loss.
yep I agree with that too. I also go by the philosophy of you should never throw out your diet if you enjoy something then modify it or look for an alternative. I think when people wholesale change their eating habits this is where they go wrong.
I would not naturaly eat protein high meals so why change a training diet to it. Its not what my body is used to so of course it will crave the carbs. I have similar view points to the paleo diet in that respect but just restricted to my life span and getting back on track.
Whats scares me are the number of people that simply do not know the basics of nutrition what are we teaching our kids and what are we teaching at schools nowadays!
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
BFG...not sure where the "but" is coming into play.
most diets work because you're limiting something...very likely something that you eat a lot of. you don't eat that any more (and don't replace it with something equal) you lose weight. no big thing.
if you got the basics, then it's just tweaking. you can tweak all day long but unless you have the basics down you're just humping a doorknob.
Josh hit it. For most obese people, just the having the thought of what they are going to eat be healthy, or at least have them debating what they should be eating, is a huge step in the right direction. I think I'm preaching to the choir, but once you lose some weight, or at least gain a basic understanding of nutrition is when you should start working with different macro schemes more hardcore.
With my clients, I make them write down all foods they eat for a week, and then coach them through their food log. Why did you pick that twinkie instead of an apple? Why do you think that choice was a bad one? Given the choice again, what would you eat instead? Give them a basic understanding of nutrition. Then set a goal to remove one bad food item from your diet per week. After a few weeks, they usually come to me and start asking about macro breakdowns (very generally), or I will introduce it to them. It has worked for me, and it makes it easier to chat with them about nutrition if you can teach them about it...
Sorry, just my thoughts. Josh, I like what you've put together, but as ALWAYS with nutrition, it is easily picked apart. Good work though!!!
Personaly am totaly anti low carb as its fuel without a good source of fuel you are looking to convert protein or use glycogen so metabolism is slower to react
As you say though its all about equilibrium and without counting calories/portions then you wont be able to adjust that equilibrium
The problem with this theory is that the body doesn't use carbs as fuel very often. Anytime there is sufficient oxygen the body will use fat as its main fuel source. Fat is a much better fuel compared to carbs because it takes less total grams. Its like burning logs(fats) compared to twigs(carbs), its going to take a hell of a lot more twigs to keep the fire burning.
Only in extreme cases will the body convert protein to glucose for use as a fuel, its just not necessary.
Also, glycogen is rather easy for the body to use, thats why it stores it. Glycogen is quite similar to glucose (the end product when using carbs as fuel).
Carbs are just a quick and easy source of energy, the only time that is necessary is around exercise. Which is why so many people advocate a low carb diet with all the carbs pre and post workout. You give the body the quick fuel when it needs it and not when it doesn't.
Danny
__________________
Limitations are for people who have them.
Just playing devils advocate here but using your analogy though if the fire is already going by adding a small amount of twigs to the fire at regular intervals you will keep that fire fed. It will then burn at a more ferocious heat and enable an even quicker burn of the logs.
So if the body has a regular source of carbs then it will have already converted the last feeding to glucose therefore there is thn less demand on glycogen; so your body does not drop into glycogen reserves as quick. It can then efficiently metabolise fat, assuming you are well hydrated.
But when I say carb high I should have quantified this with an example when Im on a low calorie week then overall carb intake is still low its just the highest macro % wise. eg a 1700 calorie day its circa 230g
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
I am with DKing on this one, but you know that.
I see no need for most people to have carbs outside the workout window. Even then, some people (esp. women) don't react well to PWO carbs so they go with lower GI choices. It's all a matter of how close you are to your goals.
Also, one point noone brough up was that your body reacts to carb restriction just like it reacts to starvation, so it is not those 4 calories per 1 gram that make the difference when you cut out the carbs.
So if the body has a regular source of carbs then it will have already converted the last feeding to glucose therefore there is thn less demand on glycogen; so your body does not drop into glycogen reserves as quick. It can then efficiently metabolise fat, assuming you are well hydrated.
Actually, it's the opposite. If you're wanting to burn fat, you WANT glycogen levels to be low. Low glycogen signals the body to conserve carbohydrate--which means fat becomes the primary source of energy.It's really basically the same reason you can drink high-glycemic carbs after your workout and not worry about it leading to fat storage. Your body wants to restore glycogen levels just in case of emergency, so it increases the rate of fat oxidation until it does.
And breaking down muscle protein for energy also becomes less of a problem, since again, your body doesn't need as much glucose because it's running on fat. Plus, by definitiion, a low-carb diet is higher in protein, so it has plenty to go around to support and build muscle as well as contribute the the very small amount of gluconeogenesis that occurs.
In fact, this one of the simplest explanations of why low-carb diets are so effective, and why they seem to have a nutritient partitioning effect--shuttling nutrients away from fat storage and over to muscle. HERE'S http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/9 a complicated review, but nevertheless a more scientific explanation.
As far as energy concerns, if you're eating enough calories, you'll have plenty of fuel for hard exercise. There's a ketoadaptation curve, but it's fairly short. Steve Phinney at Cal has written about this. In my personal experience, once adaptation has occurred, I haven't experienced any performance issues.
I am with DKing on this one, but you know that.
I see no need for most people to have carbs outside the workout window. Even then, some people (esp. women) don't react well to PWO carbs so they go with lower GI choices. It's all a matter of how close you are to your goals.
Also, one point noone brough up was that your body reacts to carb restriction just like it reacts to starvation, so it is not those 4 calories per 1 gram that make the difference when you cut out the carbs.
This is one thing that puzzles me. I've always heard the proper macro breakdown is around 40c/30p/30f. Based on this, I find it impossible to only have carbs pre and post workout. Taking a diet of 6 meals a day, only 2 would contain carbs. Is this just differing opinions on what the proper macro breakdown is?
To add to that, I was always under the impression that your pre/during/post workout nutrition is seperate from your 6 meals per day. You count what you consume in your daily intake, but you shouldn't count that as an actual meal.
Excellent discussion by the way, very educational. Good to hear from Adam too!
Ted
__________________
Two Bears Dadda? Two Bears Benno, just two. ______________________________ ___________
There are three things in my life which I really love: God, my family, and baseball. The only problem - once baseball season starts, I change the order around a bit. ~Al Gallagher, 1971
yes you want glycogen levels to go low but you do not want them to run low too quick hence the trickle of carbs. Im not advocating 500g of carbs a day when suggesting high carbs I am suggesting the carbs be the highest proportion.
But again its different view points on this one as to the method you prefer. Heres an interesting summary of an article:
The problem is the jury is out on all these diets and there is no definitive answer, there are also so many life variables that impact on the way people adhere to these diets as well
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
mwnn> short answer "yes" it's different schools of thought on what the macro breakdown would be.
tell me about it ! makes the mind boggle doesnt it! I think you kind of find what works for you and play around with it. On fat loss I was on 60/20/20 now Im more 45/35/20
But every report you read sites a slight difference in the figures
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
To add to that, I was always under the impression that your pre/during/post workout nutrition is seperate from your 6 meals per day. You count what you consume in your daily intake, but you shouldn't count that as an actual meal.
Excellent discussion by the way, very educational. Good to hear from Adam too!
Ted
Calories are calories regardless of when they are consumed so including them is a must. But thats why so many people vastly over consume on protein (tend to be those that dont watch the calorie intake tho)
yeh great discussion I love different angles on this subject its all more for the arsenal after all its not a one shoe fits all approach
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is the quality of food. I see people with "great" macros getting them from crap sources. I don't care if your 40 grams of carbs are 10% of your total if they came from chocolate.
Also, people get too caught up in macros in my opinion.Once the calories and protein are set, just make sure you get your carbs and fat in a good proportion for your goals and needs.
BFG, your study is from 1996. Have a look at the newer research--what's been done in the last 5 years. Head-to-head a high-carb diet won't beat a low-carb diet. Besides the research, it doesn't make sense physiologically.
Also, you'd have to define too low for me on glycogen. What does that mean? On a low-carb diet, glycogen levels are only reduced to 50-75 percent of normal.
I wouldn't consider 250 grams of carbs a day a "trickle." If you were on a 2000 calorie a day diet, that'd be 50% of total carb intake, and you'd still be primarily burning carbs instead of fat. No doubt someone can lose weight that way but it's not as effective for fat loss or muscle preservation as, say, 50 grams of carbs of day. Recent studies have shown this over and over.
Keep in mind, I'm not discussing lifestyle or personal preferences here, I'm just talking about the science of it all. What's funny is that I could show you a more recent study (Foster, 2003 http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/...ct/348/21/2082) that says there's no difference between a low-carb and low-fat (high carb) diet after 12 months. That's what the media released. But the problem is that to initiate the diets, they simply gave the study subjects a book--ie one on how to do a low carb, one on how to do low-fat--and then tested them as time went by. After six months, the low-carb diet well outperformed the low-fat diet in both fat loss and reducing heart disease risk. So what happened at 12 months? People stopped following the diet, and that goes for low-fat, too. Even though the authors admit this in the discussion, this is not what the media picked up on. Instead, it was low-fat and low-carb are equally as effective, and people can't follow low-carb diets long term.
The fact is, people have trouble following ANY diet long term. So I agree with doing what you can stick with, but I don't think that we necessarily need to dance around the science of what works the best physiologically.
I think timing of all these foods matters, and ultimately, the amount matters too--there seems to be some sort of threshold, like 100-150 grams a day where people really start to get good results. That's purely my opinion, although I think Layman may have done some research that backs it up.
Anyway, there's my two cents. I'm out. Have a great weekend.
yeh appologies quick search as have lost all my old studies when my pc died which is gutting.
I agree tho on the long term issue re diets thats why I prefer the re-education to a healthy balanced intake a diet that yuo can follow long term. When I said trickle I meant breaking down the carbs to regular small amount throughout the day.
I suppose it comes down to a diet that people are able to maintain. I think personaly and from having this discussion with others people tend to stick to the high carb mod protein low fat diets better as its more akin to normal eating patterns. Therefore they feel a diet is then less of a chore and easier to adapt to.
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
Actually, studies have shown that people stick better to lower carb diets because of higher satiety and the ability to eat more.
Anyone who's been on a low fat diet knows the problems associated with cravings, mood swings and low energy.
I believe something like Berardi'd massive eating could also work well for some people (P+C, P+F).
Truth is, people don't want to look good and people don't want to put the effort in, so on any diet, they will sabotage themselves once they see some results. It's very rare that you can see someone follow an eating pattern for years (this spring it's 4 years of low carb for Milko and 3 for me, I wish someone would study us). So I guess when it comes down to diets, people rarely are able to maintain (social and psychological reasons), so that can't be used all that well to compare diets.
Check out "Nobody really wants to lose weight" in Lou's blog
bfg> the thing you're worried about (crapping out on the glycogen)...is something that by in large you couldn't do anything about anyway. The only time it'll happen is at very short, very high intensity excersise...or something really...really....really long. Either way reguardless of how many carbs you're eating thru the day you can't process them fast enough during that time that you'd be running out to restore yourself to do another set of chinups.
that's where the window on either side comes in. you're building and maintaining the statis right off the bat...nothing happens during the rest of the normal day to throw it off.
but what I find is that 70% of people who think they eat clean are not
Question: I've been told white is rather bad because of the high GI, brown rice being better. I don't care for pure brown rice, so I've been mixing half brown, half white. Is this going to screw up anything?
Actually, studies have shown that people stick better to lower carb diets because of higher satiety and the ability to eat more.
Anyone who's been on a low fat diet knows the problems associated with cravings, mood swings and low energy.
I think I can attest to this. I did Atkins for three months, Phase I, then a looser version of P1 for another 4-5 months. I went from 211lbs to 169lb. Then I lost discipline, gain 24 back, lately a bit more, so I'm back at 190lbs.
Now, I'm basically eating healthier foods, lower fat for the most part, and it's going ok, but I'll get real hungry just before a feeding and after i wake up, I'm violently hungry.
bfg> the thing you're worried about (crapping out on the glycogen)...is something that by in large you couldn't do anything about anyway. The only time it'll happen is at very short, very high intensity excersise...or something really...really....really long. Either way reguardless of how many carbs you're eating thru the day you can't process them fast enough during that time that you'd be running out to restore yourself to do another set of chinups.
that's where the window on either side comes in. you're building and maintaining the statis right off the bat...nothing happens during the rest of the normal day to throw it off.
Yeh I take that on board when you look at a day in isolation but if you are taking a diet over a prolonged period of time then would you not agree the cumulative affect would then kick in?
Thats why there is always the healthy debate over which diet and which macro split is best its those that achieve one way over another are always going to champion that cause if they find the other way did not produce the results they were after. It doesnt mean either way doesnt work it just means they were not succesful in the way they controlled the diet and had the right training plan/philosphy to suit the diet.
__________________
BFG
"The time for talking has passed, actions are speaking louder than words."
Diet basics by me
Linear Mode
