Low Carb Diet - very successful!

[Fuggan]

I've just finished reading 'Diet Cults' by Matt Fitzgerald. The underlying notion was:

"try to eat the LEAST restrictive diet to maximize performance"

Sums it up perfectly for me.

 

[ttaskmaster]

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.

Without counting every single calorie, since it likely evens out over the months and years anyway, if there is only one thing that has changed in a pretty regular routine then it's more than just a 'guess' at that being the only possible cause... it's fairly certain.

 

[FrenchTart]

It certainly doesn't "even out over the months and years" - otherwise nobody would ever get fat.

Perhaps my last post was badly worded. Especially as I realise now that I was getting you mixed up with someone else for a moment. I stand by my point about you simple not having an accurate idea of your intake and energy expenditure though.

 

[D.P.]

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.

The difference is not that huge and there is some variance.

Sure if you ate a bowl of pure sugar it wouldn't keep you filled for very long but if you eat an apple for example, all the fiber will help keep you filled longer. Same goes for things like sweet potatoes.


The converse is true for fatty food, because you can very quickly get a high amount of calories in a relatively small volume. Ifs very easy to eat 100 calories of soemthign very fatty and still be very hungry and keep eating. Eating a1000calors of carbs will leave you pretty stuffed

 

[FrenchTart]

Generally speaking fat is quite satiating gram for gram.

As has already been mentioned, demonising any one macro is not the way to go.

 

[ttaskmaster]

It certainly doesn't "even out over the months and years" - otherwise nobody would ever get fat.

I meant my average calorie intake will not vary dramatically over long periods of time. Maybe throughout the week, but that's about it. I might take in 2503 one day and 2622 another, with 2445 later, but the average across several weeks is the same.
Exact calorie intake is irrelevant, as I'd have the same large bowl of the same cereal for breakfast, the same two sandwiches for lunch and whatever for dinner, though typically a meat & 3 veg sort of affair, with Chinese once a week (yes, same menu every time) and pizza (always 16" meat feast) another once a week.

For ages, I didn't gain any weight, despite eating like a horse. I was almost 3 stone underweight for decades. Gradually I ceased all exercise, but carried on eating the same and experienced no change in 5 years.
Then, when I dropped to only 1/3rd of meals, I very quickly got 2 stone overweight within about 4 months.

How do you explain that with calorie counting?

 

[FrenchTart]

You can't explain it with calorie counting because you're not calorie counting and you're just guessing at the amounts you eat/do.

 

[BennyC]

For ages, I didn't gain any weight, despite eating like a horse. I was almost 3 stone underweight for decades. Gradually I ceased all exercise, but carried on eating the same and experienced no change in 5 years.
Then, when I dropped to only 1/3rd of meals, I very quickly got 2 stone overweight within about 4 months.

How do you explain that with calorie counting?

That despite thinking you have accurately accounted for your caloric intake and total energy expenditure (not just exercise specific) over this period, you haven't.

There would have been some forgotten decrease in TDEE, whether this is from walking less and driving more, doing less housework, sleeping for longer or alternatively despite a decrease in food volume a hidden increase in your calorie intake.

You simply can't store fat without an excess caloric input. Just like you can't build muscle/create new tissue without a surplus. /science.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You can't explain it with calorie counting because you're not calorie counting and you're just guessing at the amounts you eat/do.

I don't need to count when the intake and output remains constant.
If you cut the intake by 60% and that is the only variable, what else is there?

There would have been some forgotten decrease in TDEE, whether this is from walking less and driving more, doing less housework, sleeping for longer or alternatively despite a decrease in food volume a hidden increase in your calorie intake.

Unless the different levels in a game affect my Total Daily/Weekly/Monthly Energy Expenditure, was the same throughout those months of weight gain as it was during the years before. My work/home life was pretty much the same routine right the way through, even down to the number of hours spent reading.

Unless it was a years-long delayed reaction to stopping the exercise, in which case I'm surprised it took so long to hit and didn't seem to take effect until very suddenly and right after I cut the calorie intake...?

 

[BennyC]

Unless the different levels in a game affect my Total Daily/Weekly/Monthly Energy Expenditure, was the same throughout those months of weight gain as it was during the years before. My work/home life was pretty much the same routine right the way through, even down to the number of hours spent reading.

Unless it was a years-long delayed reaction to stopping the exercise, in which case I'm surprised it took so long to hit and didn't seem to take effect until very suddenly and right after I cut the calorie intake...?

You said yourself you weren't counting calories so how do you know with absolute certainty your calorie intake reduced? you don't.

You talk about 'input' but don't misconstrue reducing food volume for reducing calories. Energy density will be the sole contributory factor to weight gain/loss when food volumes remain constant.

 

[ttaskmaster]

You said yourself you weren't counting calories so how do you know with absolute certainty your calorie intake reduced?

Because I ate pretty much the same things for the same meals, on a fairly limited weekly menu.
Unless those meals magically jump up several hundred calories, the base intake remained the same. Cut out two of those meals and the calorific intake WILL reduce.

 

[ClangNBang]

A banana a day and a handful of blueberries once in a while will assist with natural serotonin production. Plus all the other vitamins and minerals they are said to provide.

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.

Very interesting topic. Certainly agree that complex carbs are good. More simple carbs should be avoided if possible, unless they are post training. For intance I will general eat a bowl of rice along with some veg and meat simply so the muscles can regain their levels of glycogen that would have been lost after 1-2 hrs of resistance training.

At the end of the day if something is working for you, stick to it. We have all evolved differently. We also all have different life goals whether it's to lose weight, gain muscle, run farther, lift heavier etc.... I say do it all if you can