Low Carb Diet - very successful!

[Somnambulist]

'Paleo' isn't even a concrete diet. Different 'gurus' promote different levels of extremity in terms of what's permitted and what isn't, and humans back then were opportunistic eaters and ate whatever was available in the regions they inhabited, which varied a lot.

The only good thing about it is it encourages the majority of your intake to come from nutrient dense sources, whole foods etc, but that's not a exclusive to any particular diet - even us Flexible Dieter types will get most of our intake from these sources because otherwise hitting various macronutrient ranges becomes very difficult; most processed stuff doesn't usually have a ton of nutritional value (although this isn't set in stone, e.g. whey powder), but equally there's no evidence having a minority of your intake come from these sources (say 10-20% of your daily/weekly intake) has any adverse affect on health markers, so there's no reason to create disordered relationships with certain foods.

 

[Freefaller]

Bacon is allowed in paelo but it is a processed and whilst delicious not a very good meat to have in high quantity.

 

[ttaskmaster]

72 hours without food for metabolic rate to begin to slow. Short term meal frequency has no notable effect on metabolism or initiating 'survival' mode.

72 hours from normal, perhaps. But what about going from 3 regular meals to one irregularly and continuing that for years?
That's what I'm talking about.

The whole Paleo thing is widely discredited by science

It's been "scientifically proven" that drinking orange juice can cause cancer.
It's also been "scientifically proven" that drinking orange juice can prevent cancer.

EVERY diet has been "scientifically" proven and disproven, to the point where it comes down to which marketing hype you believe most or what is in fashion at the time.

It's more about which one works best, while suiting your budget and lifestyle - Right now I spend so much time working inconvenient hours that exercise and available food is not something I can devote much time to.

Since the palaeolithic era humans have evolved quite successful to digest milk/dairy and wheat.

Was it packed with preservatives and additives back then, too?

Seems to be a popular deit with Neanderthals.

Aren't they the ones who beat everything to pieces with big clubs?

 

[Somnambulist]

Virtually none of the whole foods we eat now existed as they did back then, and there's also a big difference between 'science' (epidemiological studies etc) and actual controlled studies on humans.

 

[BennyC]

72 hours from normal, perhaps. But what about going from 3 regular meals to one irregularly and continuing that for years?

Well then, as long as its not an extensive (72hr+) denial of food then there shouldn't be any harm or adverse effects.

You can't insinuate your logic as fact.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Well then, as long as its not an extensive (72hr+) denial of food then there shouldn't be any harm or adverse effects.
You can't insinuate your logic as fact.

I don't really care so much about the logic or science behind this or any other diet - I'm just after something that works!

As it was, when I initially stopped eating 2/3rds of what I had been I did suddenly start getting porky. I was still exercising and everything, so didn't understand why I was gaining when all reasoning said I should be losing.

Still don't know why it happened, but after going on this Paleo thing for a couple months I have now steadily lost over 2 stone.

No logic behind it. I'm just losing weight, which is the point.

 

[badbiddy]

500 cals of protein doesn't keep me full (it;s only 125g chicken breast!) However adding fibre and veg/greens will always help make you feel fuller.

Personally, I need carbs to perform at my best in the athletically (i.e. at the gym, and other forms of exercise).

Why do you need to go light on carbs at dinner?

Essentially people just need to understand their calories, their macros, and eat a balanced diet getting all essential macro and micro nutrients in and be active (it won't do any harm ). As you said, everyone is different and need to work out what works for them. Starting off understanding what calories are, what macros are. How active they are. Taking their bodyfat measurements, and understanding what their BMR - calories just to exist. You burn calories by breathing, sleeping, working, using your brain, and your body repairing itself and just being "on" i.e. not dead. Then you have to add activity, if you sit all day, never move then of course you won't need much more than your BMR, if you're active, i.e. you walk, go up and down stairs, you may need a little more.

When it comes to dropping weight, you need to taper down the calories gently - i.e. try 200cals for a few weeks (this is an average of 200 cals less per day over a week period - so if one day you over eat it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things). If no effect, taper to 400cals for a few weeks, and re-evaluate etc... I wouldn't go much beyond that unless you are grossly over eating. As your body will gently lose weight which is far more manageable.

If you're overeating by 1000+ calories with a calorie intake of 4000 cals, and you suddenly drop to 2000 cals, you're going to do yourself more harm than good and lose a lot of lean tissue as well which you do not want.

500 calories of chicken breast (cheapest example) is nearly half a kilo of meat... (unless you start adding sauce etc, I try to stick to chilli sauce as you don't eat as much as you would mayo for example).

Mixed feelings about your comment on athletic performance, I can only stand by my personal experience (which just so happens to match that of many others according to posts on fitness websites): And that is your gym performance will take an initial hit unless you have some good carbs before going to the gym which is a good idea anyway.

I used to get up at 6.15am, have breakfast etc and be at the gym for 7am opening. For the first week of my regime I felt extremely tired when waking up- so I remedied this with strong coffee and peanut butter on toast (in addition to my oats+protein breakfast)- this would send me hyper in the gym, but after a while I found that I didn't need to eat the peanut butter+toast or coffee to achieve the same results (it's all just a mind game remember).

Light on carbs for dinner because I goto the gym in the morning and after dinner I will be mostly sedentary. No point in loading easy fuel for that. Just wait till breakfast and let your body burn fat during the night from your workout in the morning.

I will attest that I didn't mention anything about exercise in my first post, but the theory is the same. Just eat proportionally less/more depending on how much exercise you're doing.

 

[Freefaller]

You said 500 cals of protein alone, there are 4 cals per gramme of protein. Of course there are other macro nutrients to take into consideration, like fat etc. This can change if you include sauces, skin, and frying it in anything. etc.. But anyway this is semantics - you need to weigh the food, and take a bit of a an average measurement if you want to be very precise. Depending on the quality or type of chicken there may be more or less fat present which can skew the calories.

I'm just stating basic nutrition and science re: carbs and performance, you cannot get enough glycogen through low carbs as quickly as you can via carbs. Of course you can train your body to be less glycogen dependent, but not wholly independent. Sure your body will start metabolising fat / muscle tissue / converting protein to glycogen depending on the cardiac effort and VO2 requirements. However it is taxing to convert protein, and carbs are far more efficient at delivering energy.

I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is a rather tough task to rely on carb free lifestyle for optimum performance. You'd have to eat shed load of protein and fat which limits diets somewhat.

What you're describing is training fasted which is absolutely fine - but "loading for fuel" over night is hogwash - meal timing is completely irrelevant. If you're reasonably lean and fit your metabolism actually increases at night so eating carbs is not doing you any harm - that said it's important to get protein in at night as it helps fix / repair your cells and damage to your muscles.

If we bring in insulin sensitivity as well as glucose tolerances, if we compare morning meals, measuring blood glucose and insulin then there is a definite longer elevated state if you have a big evening meals. Though that is not proof that you should not have carbs at night. Although insulin resistance and glucose tolerance seem to be adversely affected eating at night vs a morning meal, you have to remember that morning meals are after generally after an overnight fast (hence the word break-fast) and we know that fasting improves insulin sensitivity. So a more fair comparison would be between a midday meal and an evening meal. In such an instance there is actually no difference in insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance at all. Insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance won't be less efficient at night, but rather just enhanced by an overnight fast.

You may be interested to hear that after a double blind experiment that the Journal of Obesity carried out. The experiment was putting 2 groups of overweight people on a calorie restricted diet. The groups were split into 2. Both were on the same calories, the same macros (i.e. protein/fat/carb etc...). However the things the 2 groups had differently was when carbs were given to them. One of them had carbs throughout the day, the second group had them (over 75% IIRC) in the evening before bed. After 6 months, both groups lost weight, but the group that ate the majority of carbs at night lost more bodyfat and whilst it is anecdotal, admitted to better feeling less hungry and feeling fuller for longer.

Of course what happens when you eat less frequently is that your body relies on gluconeogenesis for non exogenous carb intake which therefore maintains blood/sugar levels more steady creating less insulin peaks and troughs. Therefore a healthy dose of carbs is far more beneficial that "stoking the metabolism" which again is complete rubbish. What enhances carb intake is eating fibrous foods as it reduces the glycemic load of the carb, and creates a smaller spike - which again is great for long term general day to day living. For performance though, carb intake before a workout is beneficial and hugely studied. Hence why most if not all sports people whether in long distance or even sprinting events rely on carbs for energy during an event. I'm not just talking about lifestyle choices.

Ultimately, do what you want to do and enjoy yourself, and if you're seeing results - KEEP GOING! However, I have to chime in and stop spreading the false rumours that carbs are bad. Follow the lifestyle choice that you enjoy and can follow - and if it works for you great, but do not demonise carbs because you think it has negative connotations. The only time it has an effect is if you have a hormonal imbalance or an actual disorder of some kind.

 

[ttaskmaster]

However, I have to chime in and stop spreading the false rumours that carbs are bad. Follow the lifestyle choice that you enjoy and can follow - and if it works for you great, but do not demonise carbs because you think it has negative connotations. The only time it has an effect is if you have a hormonal imbalance or an actual disorder of some kind.

Does a serotonin defficiency count?
Apparently I have that, though I've not really done much about it or followed it up with the doctors.

I don't think it's that carbs are utterly evil, but that our modern diet contains too many carbs that is the problem. I noticed this when I first went 'Paleo-shopping' at the supermarket and tried to find foods with low-zero carbs... they're in EVERY flippin' thing!!!

Low sugar items were actually far easier to find than even low carbs and all my staple purchases were packed with both - Pies, breads, pizza, kievs, scotch eggs, desserts, cereal, whatever - All carb-heavy.

 

[Freefaller]

I agree that people probably do not get enough protein and fats in and modern diets have a load of poor processed/refined carbs, that said with good fibreous ingestion and sensible choices it can be mitigated. I will say this though cutting carbs is useful if you are obese or overweight, but in the short term only, after a few months the weight loss normalises with other calorie deficit initiatives. So yes, it's a good kick start (owing to the higher effect of insulin as a fat storage hormone), but not a long term solution to weight loss. For that you need a much bigger picture outlook.

As for your serotonin levels - I'm nut sure as my knowledge of epidemiology is not that great! I'll ask that next time I speak to my nutrition group though (a lot of them are doctors so know a shedload more than me).

 

[Somnambulist]

Sugary drinks are a big problem as they have zero satiety/nutrition but most processed food has just as much fat (which is 9kcal/g) as carbs (4kcal/g), which people always seem to miss. A typical 10" deep pan pizza might be something like 120g carbs but if it's 80g fat then far more calories are coming from there. Same with pies - usually the pastry has a ton of lard in. People should be making more sensible food choices, not just avoiding carbs.

 

[Jim99]

The big problem with carbs is that you can eat so much without any effect on appetite.

1200 kcal of protein and fat is pretty filling - of carbs, not so much.

 

[badbiddy]

You said 500 cals of protein alone, there are 4 cals per gramme of protein. Of course there are other macro nutrients to take into consideration, like fat etc. This can change if you include sauces, skin, and frying it in anything. etc.. But anyway this is semantics - you need to weigh the food, and take a bit of a an average measurement if you want to be very precise. Depending on the quality or type of chicken there may be more or less fat present which can skew the calories.

I'm just stating basic nutrition and science re: carbs and performance, you cannot get enough glycogen through low carbs as quickly as you can via carbs. Of course you can train your body to be less glycogen dependent, but not wholly independent. Sure your body will start metabolising fat / muscle tissue / converting protein to glycogen depending on the cardiac effort and VO2 requirements. However it is taxing to convert protein, and carbs are far more efficient at delivering energy.

I'm not saying it is impossible, but it is a rather tough task to rely on carb free lifestyle for optimum performance. You'd have to eat shed load of protein and fat which limits diets somewhat.

What you're describing is training fasted which is absolutely fine - but "loading for fuel" over night is hogwash - meal timing is completely irrelevant. If you're reasonably lean and fit your metabolism actually increases at night so eating carbs is not doing you any harm - that said it's important to get protein in at night as it helps fix / repair your cells and damage to your muscles.

If we bring in insulin sensitivity as well as glucose tolerances, if we compare morning meals, measuring blood glucose and insulin then there is a definite longer elevated state if you have a big evening meals. Though that is not proof that you should not have carbs at night. Although insulin resistance and glucose tolerance seem to be adversely affected eating at night vs a morning meal, you have to remember that morning meals are after generally after an overnight fast (hence the word break-fast) and we know that fasting improves insulin sensitivity. So a more fair comparison would be between a midday meal and an evening meal. In such an instance there is actually no difference in insulin sensitivity or glucose tolerance at all. Insulin sensitivity and glucose tolerance won't be less efficient at night, but rather just enhanced by an overnight fast.

You may be interested to hear that after a double blind experiment that the Journal of Obesity carried out. The experiment was putting 2 groups of overweight people on a calorie restricted diet. The groups were split into 2. Both were on the same calories, the same macros (i.e. protein/fat/carb etc...). However the things the 2 groups had differently was when carbs were given to them. One of them had carbs throughout the day, the second group had them (over 75% IIRC) in the evening before bed. After 6 months, both groups lost weight, but the group that ate the majority of carbs at night lost more bodyfat and whilst it is anecdotal, admitted to better feeling less hungry and feeling fuller for longer.

Of course what happens when you eat less frequently is that your body relies on gluconeogenesis for non exogenous carb intake which therefore maintains blood/sugar levels more steady creating less insulin peaks and troughs. Therefore a healthy dose of carbs is far more beneficial that "stoking the metabolism" which again is complete rubbish. What enhances carb intake is eating fibrous foods as it reduces the glycemic load of the carb, and creates a smaller spike - which again is great for long term general day to day living. For performance though, carb intake before a workout is beneficial and hugely studied. Hence why most if not all sports people whether in long distance or even sprinting events rely on carbs for energy during an event. I'm not just talking about lifestyle choices.

Ultimately, do what you want to do and enjoy yourself, and if you're seeing results - KEEP GOING! However, I have to chime in and stop spreading the false rumours that carbs are bad. Follow the lifestyle choice that you enjoy and can follow - and if it works for you great, but do not demonise carbs because you think it has negative connotations. The only time it has an effect is if you have a hormonal imbalance or an actual disorder of some kind.

You are most certainly right (although you knew that ). Perhaps 500g of protein was poor choice of words.

I am agreeing with you for the most part- and my diet has always included carbs, but by making your (my) diet a bit stricter, I was cutting down on mostly carbs as this, along with fat, is usually what the excess eating in the day constitutes of.

I just followed the "wavelengths guide to cutting" on bodybuilding.com. Kept a picture journal and went from about 20% body fat to nearly 10%. I say nearly because I wasn't "shredded" but I was super lean. (I have bounced back a little as my lifestyle has changed a little since getting together with my lady so I will use the word in past tense).

I might not be able to recite the science behind it all, but I understand the concept and, more relevantly, what works and like you- also take a keen interest in debunking myths about "you have to do this to lose weight".

 

[ttaskmaster]

But carby foods taste so GOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!

Actually, I miss rice and noodles the most. The rest plays second fiddle.

 

[Somnambulist]

The big problem with carbs is that you can eat so much without any effect on appetite.

1200 kcal of protein and fat is pretty filling - of carbs, not so much.

Eat 1200kcal of potato and say that again.

 

[BennyC]

As it was, when I initially stopped eating 2/3rds of what I had been I did suddenly start getting porky. /snip/

No logic behind it. I'm just losing weight, which is the point.

Looking at food intake by volume alone is like sticking your head in the sand.

The big problem with carbs is that you can eat so much without any effect on appetite.

1200 kcal of protein and fat is pretty filling - of carbs, not so much.

Eat 1200kcal of potato and say that again.

Totally subjective. I agree with Somnamblist Eat several hundred grams of plain potato and tell me you aren't satiated

 

[Freefaller]

You are most certainly right (although you knew that ). Perhaps 500g of protein was poor choice of words.

I am agreeing with you for the most part- and my diet has always included carbs, but by making your (my) diet a bit stricter, I was cutting down on mostly carbs as this, along with fat, is usually what the excess eating in the day constitutes of.

I just followed the "wavelengths guide to cutting" on bodybuilding.com. Kept a picture journal and went from about 20% body fat to nearly 10%. I say nearly because I wasn't "shredded" but I was super lean. (I have bounced back a little as my lifestyle has changed a little since getting together with my lady so I will use the word in past tense).

I might not be able to recite the science behind it all, but I understand the concept and, more relevantly, what works and like you- also take a keen interest in debunking myths about "you have to do this to lose weight".

I wasn't trying to create a debate for the sake of it, just wanted to add my bit to the conversation I'm not an oracle on the subject by any means, and as you said you've played with your diets/macros and you've found something that works for you, and in essence you're not wrong, I just wanted enhance the conversation by adding some extra context.

Cutting out any macro or dropping a macro will have an effect on weight loss in the short term, but long term it'll be more detrimental than beneficial.

 

[ttaskmaster]

Looking at food intake by volume alone is like sticking your head in the sand.

But since that was the *only* thing that changed during those years, what else is there to look at, then?

I wasn't doing any more exercise than the zero I was (and still am) at, I wasn't eating anything I hadn't before. The only thing was that I was eating one meal instead of three and suddenly piling on the pounds.

 

[FrenchTart]

All it means is that you don't have an accurate idea of what you were eating/doing before and you don't have an accurate idea of what you're eating/doing now. Because of this, your conclusion that X thing that you've done or not done is the cause of a change is simply a guess.

 

[blairw]

Tracking what you are eating allows for a few things

1) More control - if you are getting the hard facts as you eat, you are less likely to eat high kcal stuff
2) Reflection - tracking (and I mean tracking everything, good and bad) will allow you to look back and see how your calorie intake is reflected in your scale weight

The same could be done for any of your macros - but you would need to keep your Kcal intake very close to the same for the results to have any bearing? Measure a 2000kcal per day intake over 3 - 4 weeks with a particular macronutrient make up vs another 4 week intake at the same intake with a different make up (obviously ajustments would need to be made for TDEE changes as your weight reduces)