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.
What? If you didn't get it from what I write a few posts ago, I don't know what else to say. Try reading it again.
For me, may you kindly repeat or point me in the right direction. I have re-read your posts on page 2 of this thread to get no connection between the 2nd law and the advantage of low carb diets.
All I would get by applying the Second Law to nutrition is that depending on the foods you eat, the body will only be able to use so much energy from that food.
There are multiple scenarios for higher carbohydrate being superior in fat loss.
To throw out 2 real quick.
-Lethargy is a common problem for a lot of people on low carbohydrate diets. This alone can decrease daily output of caloric burn leading to a lower overall daily burn. If you lower caloric output while lowering caloric input you are going to start to run closer to even slowing fat loss.
Now a deficit in general, even one high in carbohydrates could do this as well, but being that protein is a known weaker energy source versus carbohydrates it stands that on that basis alone you might perform better.
-Both leptin and thyroid are directly affected by carbohydrate intake With thyroid circulating levels of T3 are suppressed generally when dieting down but a few studies have shown that in on a VLCD that t3 levels stayed higher with carbohydrates over pro/fat.
This could decrease fat loss stalls, could not but shouldn't be ignored.
This is not to mention the loads of gastro issues, psychological issues, etc. Metabolic advantage in the lab may be interesting and not worth discounting for discussion, but in the real world there are some many mental and physical barriers that to tout it as the one size fits all savoir is not only close minded but naive.
Exercise contributes next to nothing ITO fat loss. Many of my clients are ultra low carbers and none complain of lethargy. So I don't buy this scenario. It is not true to real life client experiences that I have ever had.
I'd like to see the studies where the VLC diet adversely affected T3 levels and impaired thyroid function. I find this a tough one to believe.
Quitting smoking has loads of mental and physical barriers as well. It's still better for you. Getting off the sugar train is tough in many ways tis true.
Alan - you said that for some a low carb diet is not best for fat loss. I asked when is it not best?
You said:
"There's a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the metabolic advantage folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It's always either-or for you guys, when in fact, individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low-carb is warranted. For others, it isn't."
Who isn't it warranted for Alan? We're talking fat loss now not extreme endurance athletes. Give me an example of who it's not warranted for?
The diet you described (60%F, 30%P, 10%F) is not optimal for all dieting populations within the areas of sports and fitness. You're claiming that it is, so the burden of proof is on you to back up that claim. Trust me, I love to look at research. If you can support your stance with it, I'll be more than happy to see what you've got. If the low-carb diet you described failed to trump the other suboptimal high-carb, low-protein diets in long-term weight loss in the sedentary obese (see my previous posts), what makes you think it will do even better for fat loss in the active or athletic population - given protein-matched conditions? Riddle me that.
I missed this one... thanks Matt for pointing that out. Let me understand correctly here. When I started RFL (one of Lyle's diets approaches), I weighed 250 lbs and had a 42" gut (lowest and largest part of my girth). After 5 weeks, I got down to 233 lbs and my gut shrunk down to 38". I also maintained my strength levels. Are you saying that there was no fat loss involved here? Think about this for a minute. If I lost 17 lbs and 4" in my waist, wouldn't that constitute a pretty significant amount of fat loss?
Let me take this one step further. I'm now at the end of my 2 week diet break in which I'm consuming 3,000 calories per day with 1,200 coming from any carb source I can get my hands on. I've miraculously lost an additional 1 lbs and 1/4" in my waist. Isn't biscuits and cookies and bananas suppose to jack up my insulin levels and a jacked up insulin level makes us fat?
You're misunderstanding. Of course you lost fat. Why would you think I suggested otherwise? My point was if you lost 8 pounds of fat and 9 pounds of lean, this would be undesirable.
It's the difference between what you were eating before and now. Undoubtedly you were eating more carbs before and / or alcohol.
If instead you cut out more carbs, replacing the biscuts with vegetables and ate more meat and fat, you'd lose even more and retain more lean mass.
The diet you described (60%F, 30%P, 10%F) is not optimal for all dieting populations within the areas of sports and fitness. You're claiming that it is, so the burden of proof is on you to back up that claim. Trust me, I love to look at research. If you can support your stance with it, I'll be more than happy to see what you've got. If the low-carb diet you described failed to trump the other suboptimal high-carb, low-protein diets in long-term weight loss in the sedentary obese (see my previous posts), what makes you think it will do even better for fat loss in the active or athletic population - given protein-matched conditions? Riddle me that.
Alan, don't toss it back at me. You said what you said. So tell me, describe a scenario whereby superior fat loss is achieved by a higher carb diet? I am not talking about sports and fitness at all. I am talking fat loss. Let's stay on topic.
Again, describe a client that will be better off on a high carb diet than on a low one given the same calories?
Since you're not listening to research, perhaps you'll listen to anecdote. I've chimed in too late in this conversation, with Alan, Mike, and a number of other contributors providing more than enough research to contest your claim that low-carb diets provide a metabolic advantage. So I'll leave that be.
In my client roster, I've found that active populations suffer and fat-loss worsens under chronic low-carb conditions, presuming caloric control.
Why? Dietary carbohydrate provides the most bang for the bang in fueling the ATP or phosphagen system. Under resistance training conditions - what amounts to high intensity activity - carbohydrate is the preferred substrate. Chronic insufficient availability of carbohydrate in the form of muscle glycogen has crippled a-many trainees progress in the gym. Moreover, carbohydrate nets a greater thermogenic effect upon consumption, and under overfeeding conditions, is more difficult to store as fat in the body. Beyond that, it looks like less than about 130g of daily carbohydrate causes a down-regulation of thyroid output.
I'm sure you're aware that the anaerobic energy pathway, otherwise known as glycolysis, creates ATP exclusively from carbohydrates, with lactic acid being a by-product. As exercise intensity increases, the body relies more and more on carbohydrate metabolism.
So, quick thought experiment. Trainee walks into the gym. Is overloading on fat, all the while under-carbed. His training session nets a 300kcal burn. Contrast this with someone sufficiently carbed, with a lower fat intake. His training sessions nets a 400kcal burn due to greater loads lifted, improved recovery, and more repetitions performed.
Boom, greater potential for fat loss through indirect mechanisms. To be clear, I'm not saying that a higher carbohydrate diet is always going to net greater fat loss than a fat-based diet, but for certain athletic populations (and I'm going to presuppose, many JP Fitness forum members), they'll need more, not less carbohydrate than the typical inactive American.
You're misunderstanding. Of course you lost fat. Why would you think I suggested otherwise? My point was if you lost 8 pounds of fat and 9 pounds of lean, this would be undesirable.
It's the difference between what you were eating before and now. Undoubtedly you were eating more carbs before and / or alcohol.
If instead you cut out more carbs, replacing the biscuts with vegetables and ate more meat and fat, you'd lose even more and retain more lean mass.
How did you arive at 8 / 9. Did you read my post. I lost 4" in my waist, I bench pressed 120 DBs for 3 reps before and after, I deadlifted 465 before and after. If I lost 9 lbs of lean, I'm not sure how I maintained strength. Given the fact that I was on an extreme caloric deficit and have trained for more than 2 years, I don't think my CNS suddently became more efficient in 5 weeks.
Alan, don't toss it back at me. You said what you said. So tell me, describe a scenario whereby superior fat loss is achieved by a higher carb diet? I am not talking about sports and fitness at all. I am talking fat loss. Let's stay on topic.
Again, describe a client that will be better off on a high carb diet than on a low one given the same calories?
What I don't get is why you continually try to shift the goalposts and hold others to a standard of evidence you yourself won't adhere to.
When you can't answer simple question and instead have to ignore valid points on grounds of "meanness", then start with the silly logic games, you've already lost the argument.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
How did you arive at 8 / 9. Did you read my post. I lost 4" in my waist, I bench pressed 120 DBs for 4 reps before and after, I deadlifted 465 before and after. If I lost 9 lbs of lean, I'm not sure how I maintained strength. Given the fact that I was on an extreme caloric deficit and have trained for more than 2 years, I don't think my CNS suddently became more efficient.
8 + 9 = 17. You said you lost 17 pounds right?
I didn't say you LOST any mass - I said that if you had it would not be desirable.
What I don't get is why you continually try to shift the goalposts and hold others to a standard of evidence you yourself won't adhere to.
When you can't answer simple question and instead have to ignore valid points on grounds of "meanness", then start with the silly logic games, you've already lost the argument.
Listen PowermanDL or whoever you really are, it's folks like you who ruin good dialogue between people who are genuinely interested in debate and learning.
I will address your question as to whom I may prescribe a "higher" carb diet for (for fat loss). I realize I alluded to this in our original banter as the topic took off in a whole host of different directions...
First thing - thorough dieting/exercise/lifestyle/bod y wt/body comp hx. and current assessment. I have to know where they're coming from from the aforementioned perspectives and where they want to get to and by when.
To be absolutely simplistic and "occams razor-ish" here, the best diet is the one that people can stick to and still see results. Again, it depends on goals/motivation and other factors. With that said;
1. Some people just plain don't do well on low carb. As Leigh mentioned they feel sapped of energy, irritable and mentally foggy. I realize there is an adjustment period here - but if people just can't do it, there are other paths towards the same goal.
2. Those who have been on low carb but haven't seen results and/or have stalled in their progress. Elevating carb levels to a degree tends to work pretty well - as long as protein intake remains constant.
Anectodotally, I have had a handful of clients on Atkins. They invariable last 2-4 months on it and quit. They lose weight, their strength and energy decline (albeit not drastically) and they smell like a foot.
Conversely, some of my clients do very well on lower carb and I especially try and rx it for those who have a difficult time moderating. There are a number of both acute and chronic factors to consider. My injured clients who aren't able to be as active are recommended lower carb intakes.
Oftentimes it isn't even one or the other. Carb cycling, alternate day fasting or 15-18 hr modified AD fasting people do well with higher carb intakes (in my estimation).
Listen PowermanDL or whoever you really are, it's folks like you who ruin good dialogue between people who are genuinely interested in debate and learning.
Anyone else here care to speak up on this issue?
I often ruin good dialogue by asking for evidence and pointing out logical song-and-dance routines.
Such as you totally avoiding any relevant points and continuing to rely on your goalpost-shifting.
Meanwhile you won't even respond to a basic question.
That's how most bullshitters work.
__________________
Articles | Blog | Pirate my book. "Yeah, but you did your post grad thesis on trolling, so you don't count."
-JP, endorsing how awesome I am
Since you're not listening to research, perhaps you'll listen to anecdote. I've chimed in too late in this conversation, with Alan, Mike, and a number of other contributors providing more than enough research to contest your claim that low-carb diets provide a metabolic advantage. So I'll leave that be.
In my client roster, I've found that active populations suffer and fat-loss worsens under chronic low-carb conditions, presuming caloric control.
Why? Dietary carbohydrate provides the most bang for the bang in fueling the ATP or phosphagen system. Under resistance training conditions - what amounts to high intensity activity - carbohydrate is the preferred substrate. Chronic insufficient availability of carbohydrate in the form of muscle glycogen has crippled a-many trainees progress in the gym. Moreover, carbohydrate nets a greater thermogenic effect upon consumption, and under overfeeding conditions, is more difficult to store as fat in the body. Beyond that, it looks like less than about 130g of daily carbohydrate causes a down-regulation of thyroid output.
I'm sure you're aware that the anaerobic energy pathway, otherwise known as glycolysis, creates ATP exclusively from carbohydrates, with lactic acid being a by-product. As exercise intensity increases, the body relies more and more on carbohydrate metabolism.
So, quick thought experiment. Trainee walks into the gym. Is overloading on fat, all the while under-carbed. His training session nets a 300kcal burn. Contrast this with someone sufficiently carbed, with a lower fat intake. His training sessions nets a 400kcal burn due to greater loads lifted, improved recovery, and more repetitions performed.
Boom, greater potential for fat loss through indirect mechanisms. To be clear, I'm not saying that a higher carbohydrate diet is always going to net greater fat loss than a fat-based diet, but for certain athletic populations (and I'm going to presuppose, many JP Fitness forum members), they'll need more, not less carbohydrate than the typical inactive American.
Lactic acid is not the byproduct - lactate is. And I am not ignoring the research in the least. I have provided research to support a MA and it was rejected because the subjects, it is argued, lied about their intake, menaing, they ate less and lied about it. Yeah well, I suppose then it could be that the low fat subjects over ate. Just as plausible, no?
In your "client roster'..." Let me ask you - how old are you and how long have you been training people? Give me an example of such fat gain or less fat loss under, as you call it, 'chronic lowcarb conditions.'
Do you know what gluconeogenesis is?
I have to tell you that your thought experiment is totally made up and does not reflect reality. I've been training people for 20 years and doing so in a low carb fashion for almost 10. My experience is the opposite.
And it all depends on how you allow yourself to adjust.
The dogs on the Iditarod eat pure fat and adequate protein. They do quite well without any carbohydrate.
Careful before you state that our digestive systems are different than a dogs. Remember the Eskimo and the work of Stefannson.
The A to Z study http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/9/969 if you read it closely is a perfect example of the MA, that calories are not just calories and that insulin is the primary regulator of adipose tissue. Mike slapped it down saying it wasn't a ward study. So did James K.
Fred, I never made any comments anywhere regarding the A to Z study, whether on this site or on yours.
Nevertheless, I would have to agree with Mike. The A to Z study does not support a metabolic advantage to low carb diets. Dietary control was very poor in this study. In fact, I published a meta-analysis in AJCN on dietary macronutrients and body composition during energy restriction, and this paper would've never made my inclusion criteria (as I only included studies with a certain level of dietary control).
Quote:
The Volek studies I cited were also perfect examples.
The Volek papers also involved self report of food intake. Unfortunately such studies are unreliable for trying to demonstrate a metabolic advantage to a particular diet. A metabolic advantage can only be adequately investigated under tightly controlled dietary conditions (i.e., ward studies like Mike was referring to).
Quote:
Well fellas, if your going to slap down ALL non-ward studies then this discussion MUST only reference ward studies on every topic we discuss from here on in. Agreed?
Non-ward studies are fine for a number of things. But if you're talking a metabolic advantage, then only ward studies (or similarly tightly controlled conditions) will work because it's critical that both energy intake and energy expenditure be tightly controlled.
Listen PowermanDL or whoever you really are, it's folks like you who ruin good dialogue between people who are genuinely interested in debate and learning.
Anyone else here care to speak up on this issue?
Fred, you have been asked some very good questions in this thread that you haven't answered. A big one is PowermanDl's question about how you think insulin will cause fat gain in the absence of an energy surplus.
Listen PowermanDL or whoever you really are, it's folks like you who ruin good dialogue between people who are genuinely interested in debate and learning.
Anyone else here care to speak up on this issue?
actually Fred, it is people like you who ruin good dialogue. You know, ignore peoples comments, create strawmen, and absolutely uninterested in debating and learning.
So far you have provided poor references, exhibited poor understanding of science, repeated incorrect information, chucked up a number of logical fallacies, including appeal to authority, red herrings and the ever popular strawman, topped off by shifting the goalposts of your demands.
In fact, it is just like dealing with any zealot
Congratulations, you are in the running for the IOM award
In fact, I published a meta-analysis in AJCN on dietary macronutrients and body composition during energy restriction, and this paper would've never made my inclusion criteria (as I only included studies with a certain level of dietary control)..
some would say that the inclusion criteria was not tight enough
it must have been bad enough to draw Ansii out of the woodwork
actually Fred, it is people like you who ruin good dialogue. You know, ignore peoples comments, create strawmen, and absolutely uninterested in debating and learning.
So far you have provided poor references, exhibited poor understanding of science, repeated incorrect information, chucked up a number of logical fallacies, including appeal to authority, red herrings and the ever popular strawman, topped off by shifting the goalposts of your demands.
In fact, it is just like dealing with any zealot
Congratulations, you are in the running for the IOM award
First of all you write like a teenager which tells me there's not a lot going on upstairs for you. Intelligent, thinking people don't post what you posted above. That's a hard fact of lfe.
2nd, because you can't comprehend what I write isn't my problem. It's yours.
The studies and papers I have provided I doubt you even read as they are VG pieces of science. I don't 'appeal to authority.' I quote expert information in order to help you all understand my position. Is citing studies an appeal to authority? Quoting Einstein? Strawman arguments occur when someone deliberately picks apart another argument and twists it into another. I've not done that.
Also, there are, what, a dozen or so people here and I can't answer every single query or question. I'm a busy guy.
But it's folks like you who ruin it for others. And what I mean by that is I've no time to spend on a board like this one if it is littered with people like you.
Sorry mike and James, but the bulk of this board is at teenager level. I've got better things to do. See ya.
Alan, don't toss it back at me. You said what you said. So tell me, describe a scenario whereby superior fat loss is achieved by a higher carb diet? I am not talking about sports and fitness at all. I am talking fat loss. Let's stay on topic.
Again, describe a client that will be better off on a high carb diet than on a low one given the same calories?
Okay, let's use someone who's 175 lbs at 20% bodyfat and wants to get down to 160 lbs at 10%. Since you seem to want to avoid a sports/fitness scenario, let's assume this person has a low training volume & non-gifted metabolism, so it's reasonable to assume that his maintenance is approximately 2200 kcal. So, if he diets at a 500 kcal deficit, then he'll be consuming 1700 kcal. If we apply your diet recs (60%F, 30%P, 10%C), this would be 113.3gF, 127.5gP, 42.5gC. Do you see anything wrong with that picture? Protein intake isn't optimal. Carbs are restricted to the point of impracticality.
Now, let's take another approach. Let's set his protein at a gram per pound of target weight, or 160g. Let's set his fat at half of that, 80g. This leaves him with 85g carbs to work with throughout the day, whereas in the previous scenario, 2 fruits would nearly kill his carb allotment for the day. This alternate scenario leaves him with double the carbs, significantly more protein and its associated satiety (not to mention better LBM support), and a reasonable fat allotment that still leaves room for regular, non-diet foods. Also, the thermic effect of this diet will be greater (ooh metabolic advantage here), he will have greater training capacity if he decides to step up his volume or intensity or both, and his mood will likely be better, as will his cognitive ability.
So let's review the proceedings of our discussion here, chronologically:
1) I asked you to state your contentions, you did.
2) You touted the A to Z trial, I provided 4 trials of similar length whose results didn't agree with it.
3) You asked me to show you the metabolic ward studies that invalidate the silly "metabolic advantage of less carbs" concept, and I gave you 2 scientific references that discuss them in-depth.
4) You asked me to show you who would benefit from a diet higher in carbs than what you recommend. I did.
...
Also, there are, what, a dozen or so people here and I can't answer every single query or question. I'm a busy guy.
But it's folks like you who ruin it for others. And what I mean by that is I've no time to spend on a board like this one if it is littered with people like you.
Sorry mike and James, but the bulk of this board is at teenager level. I've got better things to do. See ya.
Fred, I am coming out of lurkdom to say that this makes me sad. I am actually trying to read the studies presented by both sides (abstracts only at this time) and keep up with the conversation. I am not saying anything because I do not "know" anything really at this time. Just trying to learn. I especially found the 2nd law very interesting and similar to non-linear Math or quantum physics in its nature but still don't get it or how it applies here. Perhaps it doesn't matter at the end of the day, but I am hoping for some sort of enlightenment either way.
This board can be tough sometimes but there are so many really good minds in this thread that it would be a damn shame for it to die. I liked it earlier when you simply chose to communicate to those who are talking with reason to you and respect. Alan, Leigh Peele, James and Mike seem to be doing this at a minimum. If you have to (for time's sake and for relevance sake too) just speak with them and nobody would judge you. In fact I would appreciate the more narrow converstion anyway. Alan is driving it in a very linear direction which helps me to focus as well.
Besides, you are right in that you should not have to come here to defend your character... but please continue to defend your position and ignore those who would throw cheap and irrelevent comments in the mix. I won't say that I agree with anything that you are saying, but I will say that I appreciate the fact (thank you) that you come here to bring all these minds together to discuss this subject in this manner. I hope you take the time to read the studies presented and continue with more information from your side.
On a practical level I have a question or two to help me grasp the context of your thoughts... (Hopefully is quick for you)
1. What exactly is "low carb" to you
2. Have you honestly in your 20 years dealing with clients not run into even one client who simply cannot function well on low carbs?
__________________
The BIGGER I get the smaller you look
Since you're not listening to research, perhaps you'll listen to anecdote. I've chimed in too late in this conversation, with Alan, Mike, and a number of other contributors providing more than enough research to contest your claim that low-carb diets provide a metabolic advantage. So I'll leave that be.
In my client roster, I've found that active populations suffer and fat-loss worsens under chronic low-carb conditions, presuming caloric control.
Why? Dietary carbohydrate provides the most bang for the bang in fueling the ATP or phosphagen system. Under resistance training conditions - what amounts to high intensity activity - carbohydrate is the preferred substrate. Chronic insufficient availability of carbohydrate in the form of muscle glycogen has crippled a-many trainees progress in the gym. Moreover, carbohydrate nets a greater thermogenic effect upon consumption, and under overfeeding conditions, is more difficult to store as fat in the body. Beyond that, it looks like less than about 130g of daily carbohydrate causes a down-regulation of thyroid output.
I'm sure you're aware that the anaerobic energy pathway, otherwise known as glycolysis, creates ATP exclusively from carbohydrates, with lactic acid being a by-product. As exercise intensity increases, the body relies more and more on carbohydrate metabolism.
So, quick thought experiment. Trainee walks into the gym. Is overloading on fat, all the while under-carbed. His training session nets a 300kcal burn. Contrast this with someone sufficiently carbed, with a lower fat intake. His training sessions nets a 400kcal burn due to greater loads lifted, improved recovery, and more repetitions performed.
Boom, greater potential for fat loss through indirect mechanisms. To be clear, I'm not saying that a higher carbohydrate diet is always going to net greater fat loss than a fat-based diet, but for certain athletic populations (and I'm going to presuppose, many JP Fitness forum members), they'll need more, not less carbohydrate than the typical inactive American.
Someone with a limited work load could still get away with a low(ered) carb diet , especially when having a sedentary job.. it would also depend on how well that person can adapt to a LC-diet.. some easily can, others never won't.
Anthony Colpo, whose name should ring a bell for a lot of people, is a huge advocate of low-carb diets who always said you can do anything & everything while eating low carb, had to swallow his words when he stepped up his activity level and became serious about road racing. He just wouldn't recover fast enough when keeping carb intake low, despite being 'fat'-adapted.
He is also a very interesting example of someone who was once a staunch believer in the MA (metabolic advantage) but turned around 180° when faced with overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, which is something that is hard for a lot of people to do (or then they pretend to say they never claimed there was a MA)
It's different strokes for different folks. Or those that want to have the benefits of better performance on higher carb intake vs the benefits of being less hungry on lower carbs: the answer simply is carb-cycling.
Okay, let's use someone who's 175 lbs at 20% bodyfat and wants to get down to 160 lbs at 10%. Since you seem to want to avoid a sports/fitness scenario, let's assume this person has a low training volume & non-gifted metabolism, so it's reasonable to assume that his maintenance is approximately 2200 kcal. So, if he diets at a 500 kcal deficit, then he'll be consuming 1700 kcal. If we apply your diet recs (60%F, 30%P, 10%C), this would be 113.3gF, 127.5gP, 42.5gC. Do you see anything wrong with that picture? Protein intake isn't optimal. Carbs are restricted to the point of impracticality.
Now, let's take another approach. Let's set his protein at a gram per pound of target weight, or 160g. Let's set his fat at half of that, 80g. This leaves him with 85g carbs to work with throughout the day, whereas in the previous scenario, 2 fruits would nearly kill his carb allotment for the day. This alternate scenario leaves him with double the carbs, significantly more protein and its associated satiety (not to mention better LBM support), and a reasonable fat allotment that still leaves room for regular, non-diet foods. Also, the thermic effect of this diet will be greater (ooh metabolic advantage here), he will have greater training capacity if he decides to step up his volume or intensity or both, and his mood will likely be better, as will his cognitive ability.
So let's review the proceedings of our discussion here, chronologically:
1) I asked you to state your contentions, you did.
2) You touted the A to Z trial, I provided 4 trials of similar length whose results didn't agree with it.
3) You asked me to show you the metabolic ward studies that invalidate the silly "metabolic advantage of less carbs" concept, and I gave you 2 scientific references that discuss them in-depth.
4) You asked me to show you who would benefit from a diet higher in carbs than what you recommend. I did.
Is there anything else I can do for you sir?
Alan, thanks for breaking it down into your examples. That makes a lot of sense to me. Being more of a "low carb" person normally, I was watching this thread. However, BOTH of your examples are what most would consider "low carb", but I'd take the 2nd breakdown for the reasons you stated. I like the idea of getting away from macros and starting with ensuring protein needs are met first and then fill in with the rest, which is what I've been doing more recently. Seems to work well for me, and your example even makes it more concrete in my mind.
I admit that at 10% carbs I'd likely kill someone for a piece of fruit!
You know, over the last few years I've figured something out. What works for one person doesn't necessarily work for someone else. You can do all the self-reporting studies, but until you lock people up and observe them you'll probably never have a definitive answer.
By the way, I've lost weight on high carb (low protein, low fat), but my preference is to keep the protein levels decent and let the fat/carbs fall where they may. I couldn't stick a 10% carb level long enough for it to do any good though.
Linear Mode
