ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 10:24 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:43 am 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 459
Hi guys - bit of a short and somewhat lazy question

Should someone aiming to cut fat then resume a weight gain with less fat (slow rate but progressivley larger) first go fully low carb, then go into a carb cycle diet. Or would it be ok to just cycle carbs now but be on a defecit?

I'm just playing around with the effect of the diets at the moment - the goal is to loose a reasonable amount of fat now then later build up as I stall.

I have a unfounded theory that going fully low carb now would A: loose the fat quicker (not an urgency thing just an experimental thing) B: give better HDL/LDL ratios (and lower blood pressure while I'm at it) so I thought 8 weeks low carb ala Stuward (but maybe not as strict :) ) then go for a typical carb cycle on my way up, the aim being to not put on as much fat this time.

thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:34 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 613
If it was me, I'd concentrate on each goal one at a time. I'd go low carb until you look muscular but carrying a bit of fat, sort of like 'soft' or 'swollen'. So if it takes 8 weeks or 16 weeks just carry on, then start carb cycling. I'd do it this way because I'd see fat loss as a primary goal (not getting shredded, just losing enough fat to see muscles). I wouldn't llike to bulk with too much bodyfat, just some extra padding!

But then again it depends on how easily you gain and lose weight. When I bulk, I pretty much eat anything and everything, and when spring comes I get really strict with low carb again and don't have a problem losing weight up until 10-12%. How much bodyfat are you looking to lose before you gain weight again? If it's only a few pounds then it will more than likely just go gradually as you increase muscle mass anyway (as long as you aren't going crazy on the calories).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:50 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
I disagree with what a lot of people on this site believe, as long as you're at a deficit and protein is high - carbs or not - you're going to lose body fat.

I find cyclical diets to be best for adherence, as well.

Essentially the best diet is going to be the one you adhere to and that's keeping you at a caloric deficit with high protein.

Some people find that in low carb, moderate/high fat - some find it in moderate/high carb, low fat.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 8:26 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Just to be more accurate......

as long as NightFaLL is in a deficit and protein is high - carbs or not - NightFaLL is going to lose body fat.

If you have the same genetics as nightfall then I'm sure that's true for you too. However if you are asking a question such as you are asking, that would indicate that is not the case. So that would mean you would be better off following what Nevage said.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 22, 2010 9:09 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
Ironman wrote:
Just to be more accurate......

as long as NightFaLL is in a deficit and protein is high - carbs or not - NightFaLL is going to lose body fat.

If you have the same genetics as nightfall then I'm sure that's true for you too. However if you are asking a question such as you are asking, that would indicate that is not the case. So that would mean you would be better off following what Nevage said.


I'd still like to see the studies that show that caloric restriction isn't the main factor in weight loss...

And just to clarify, I know going low-carb causes water/glycogen losses, but I'm pretty sure at the end of the day calorie balance is the main force.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
NightFaLL wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Just to be more accurate......

as long as NightFaLL is in a deficit and protein is high - carbs or not - NightFaLL is going to lose body fat.

If you have the same genetics as nightfall then I'm sure that's true for you too. However if you are asking a question such as you are asking, that would indicate that is not the case. So that would mean you would be better off following what Nevage said.


I'd still like to see the studies that show that caloric restriction isn't the main factor in weight loss...

And just to clarify, I know going low-carb causes water/glycogen losses, but I'm pretty sure at the end of the day calorie balance is the main force.


This forum is littered with such studies. Stu posts them all the time. I have explained all this many times and posted references in some of them. The book "Good Calorie, Bad Calorie" has 65 pages of nothing but sited studies.

I guess I could post some links. It's not hard to find with google, so you could just look. I have never seen any studies showing that calorie restriction is the main factor.

Low carb makes you hold less water and replenishing glycogen is slower, but I wouldn't call it an issue unless you are trying to bulk up. Calorie balance doesn't matter in the way you mean it.



Now just to clarify, on the cellular level, energy balance is all there is. However going by the calories on the box is not going to give you any indication on what that energy balance is going to be. You have the extreme complexity of human biochemistry to deal with.

I'll put some of the better links together later.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:25 pm 
Offline
Associate Member
Associate Member

Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 3:16 am
Posts: 459
Cheers - think I'll do the low carb thing for 8-10 - You may be right nightfall, but essentially I knew what answer I prefered - "so why ask the question" - well, incase a majority said just use a defecit and I didnt get much support for my preference.

Its hard at my stage, since I only really know what I've tried, and low carb was effective, low cal seems ok too but I do like loading the fat cals on :) 500 cal cream/WM shakes ftw (dont worry, I get my nutrients too - I just find even eating 6-7 times a day I hit around 2.4/2.6k cals, when as a 220lbs person I should really be on 3200)

But cheers guys - open for more opinions still


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:46 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 613
Just re-reading what you said, the carb cycling on a deficit thing would work on getting you leaner and add a bit of muscle gradually. But I don't really like goals that long term. I'd prefer goal 1:fat loss, going for it 100% while keeping mass and strength up as much as possible. When I'm happy start with goal 2 of putting mass on, this way you can manipulate your carbs as you want when you feel you're putting on a bit too much fat, lower etc.

It's a lot easier to stick to one goal at a time, and I have more motivation that way because I know what my goal is. If it was to lose bodyfat and try gain mass it would sort of give me an excuse to eat crap now and again because I think I'd convince myself I could do with a few more calories.

Nightfall, I don't know if you have or not but get a couple of metabolism and biochemistry text books. It's really in depth stuff and pretty boring but it was one of my modules last year and I learned probably more about diet than I do in my nutrition modules. Diet is literally just the manipulation of hormones, it's hormones that control what your body is doing with what you eat. This is why the calorie in/out can never work. If we were a basic machine then yeah it would work perfectly.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:10 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
I almost forgot to come back and post links. But before I do, let me 2nd the idea of checking out textbooks.

Here is a good comprehensive link. Make sure to check out the bottom where there are various studies listed in reference.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... ool=pubmed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 10:26 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
I don't see anywhere in that study where it shows superiority of low carb in comparison to low calorie.

I never said ketosis was bad nor that keto diets themselves weren't effective - I was simply saying at the end of the day calorie balance is what matters and that article/whatever doesn't show any proof beyond that.

Anytime a keto diet works, it's because they eat less calories than they normally would - that simple. Most people can't eat the same amount of protein and fat calories as they could carbohydrate calories.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 1:06 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu May 07, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 613
NightFaLL wrote:
Anytime a keto diet works, it's because they eat less calories than they normally would - that simple. Most people can't eat the same amount of protein and fat calories as they could carbohydrate calories.


I agree with you in this situation , especially having done it myself. When I was having <30g a day of carbs a day I really struggled to eat. It was fine while I was cutting but because I was consuming so much protein, I wanted to bulk with minimal carbs as I was gettin more protein than ever. The thing is, I couldn't bulk like this because I couldn't get enough calories in. Although this is a side effect of a low carb diet, it's not the main mechanism in which fat loss occurs, although it does have a valuable input. I'd very much like to see some bulk on a ketogenic diet, I know it wouldn't be optimal anabolically, but I don't think I could ever consistently be in a calorie surplus without the good old blood sugar spikes and troughs.

But say you could have 3000 calories mostly fat and protein, then you had 3000 calories mostly protein and carbs. Do you not think it would make a difference? I know for me it would. I'm eating crap all winter (a lot of pizzas, more carbs in a day than I would ever have in a week in the summer) and although the fat storage has a lot to do with the fat im consuming, the carb intake is the variable that has increased the most. But it all depends on genetics as well, it's all well and good me telling you this, but you could tell me the complete opposite with the same diet!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:51 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
NightFaLL wrote:
I don't see anywhere in that study where it shows superiority of low carb in comparison to low calorie.

I never said ketosis was bad nor that keto diets themselves weren't effective - I was simply saying at the end of the day calorie balance is what matters and that article/whatever doesn't show any proof beyond that.

Anytime a keto diet works, it's because they eat less calories than they normally would - that simple. Most people can't eat the same amount of protein and fat calories as they could carbohydrate calories.


The ketosis thing was just part of that. You don't even have to be in ketosis for it to work. I don't think you looked at it carefully.

Your last paragraph is demonstrably false. It goes over that in the link I posted. People are capable of eating more with high carb, but that is irrelevant, as you try to eat less when you lose weight. People can indeed eat the same amount of calories or more and lose weight with low carb. The effect is more pronounced in people with metabolic problems.

The easiest way to understand why this is, and how it works, is to learn a little about biochemistry. Let me just give a quick example. Insulin is responsible for fat storage and feeding your body. So without it, you waste away and starve to death no matter how much you eat. If you stimulate insulin release with carbs, you increase fat storage and inhibit the mobilization of fat cells.

Then there is digestibility, carbs are more easily and quickly digested and stored. It's a more efficient fuel. There isn't as much thermogenic waste either.

another factor is that your body can regulate metabolism based on many factors. So attempting to eat less may just cause you to become more hungry, tired, and able to do less exercise. Manipulating your hormones can usually change this.

So hopefully those are easy to understand examples.

So when do calories matter? They matter AFTER all that stuff I talked about is done. This is on the cellular level. However those calories are determined by the other 90% of the equation.

So when do calories on the box label matter? When you are already doing very low carb, you can reduce calories to speed weight loss. However metabolic down regulation may become a factor at some point. This technique is particularly important for pre-contest cutting.


If you don't agree and still say it's all calories, then why don't you post some evidence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:03 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
Ironman wrote:
NightFaLL wrote:
I don't see anywhere in that study where it shows superiority of low carb in comparison to low calorie.

I never said ketosis was bad nor that keto diets themselves weren't effective - I was simply saying at the end of the day calorie balance is what matters and that article/whatever doesn't show any proof beyond that.

Anytime a keto diet works, it's because they eat less calories than they normally would - that simple. Most people can't eat the same amount of protein and fat calories as they could carbohydrate calories.


The ketosis thing was just part of that. You don't even have to be in ketosis for it to work. I don't think you looked at it carefully.

Your last paragraph is demonstrably false. It goes over that in the link I posted. People are capable of eating more with high carb, but that is irrelevant, as you try to eat less when you lose weight. People can indeed eat the same amount of calories or more and lose weight with low carb. The effect is more pronounced in people with metabolic problems.

The easiest way to understand why this is, and how it works, is to learn a little about biochemistry. Let me just give a quick example. Insulin is responsible for fat storage and feeding your body. So without it, you waste away and starve to death no matter how much you eat. If you stimulate insulin release with carbs, you increase fat storage and inhibit the mobilization of fat cells.

Then there is digestibility, carbs are more easily and quickly digested and stored. It's a more efficient fuel. There isn't as much thermogenic waste either.

another factor is that your body can regulate metabolism based on many factors. So attempting to eat less may just cause you to become more hungry, tired, and able to do less exercise. Manipulating your hormones can usually change this.

So hopefully those are easy to understand examples.

So when do calories matter? They matter AFTER all that stuff I talked about is done. This is on the cellular level. However those calories are determined by the other 90% of the equation.

So when do calories on the box label matter? When you are already doing very low carb, you can reduce calories to speed weight loss. However metabolic down regulation may become a factor at some point. This technique is particularly important for pre-contest cutting.


If you don't agree and still say it's all calories, then why don't you post some evidence.


First and foremost, fat stores efficiently even without insulin. Insulin is NOT required for fat storage.

Secondly, even if insulin did cause fat storage - it would be temporary, as when insulin levels drop you would continue using fat for fuel. What matters, then? The amount of total energy(calories) you consumed.

You will be hard pressed to find any reputable source that says calories are not the determining factor in weight/fat loss.

You're taking entirely too extremist of a view on insulin/carbs and demonizing them without realizing that calories are what matters.

Weightology.net has a good series on insulin and why it isn't the demon low-carb advocates make it out to be.

As for me misunderstanding what you had linked - it didn't show any proof that caloric deficit wasn't required for fat loss - which is what I'm arguing.

You can not eat 1000 calories of fat/protein over your maintenance and not gain weight, it goes against the laws of thermodynamics.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 11:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Well you can go ahead and think what you like. I really don't care. However I am completely unconvinced by dismissing everything out of hand, making baseless assertions and providing no evidence.

I am also not convinced by a website with a clear agenda to cash in on obesity, where the author seems to be as short on evidence as you.


A couple of things I really would like you to explain are these.

Quote:
Insulin is NOT required for fat storage.


In that context, please explain how people can waste away to nothing and die from untreated type 1 diabetes. Based on your statement above that should be impossible unless you have an explanation.

Quote:
You're taking entirely too extremist of a view on insulin/carbs and demonizing them without realizing that calories are what matters.


I would like to present this as a typical example of your arguments here. This looks like special pleading. You are also assuming the conclusion in your premise, which is circular logic.

You need to explain this stuff if you want to convince anyone of anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:36 am 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am
Posts: 778
Ironman wrote:
Well you can go ahead and think what you like. I really don't care. However I am completely unconvinced by dismissing everything out of hand, making baseless assertions and providing no evidence.

I am also not convinced by a website with a clear agenda to cash in on obesity, where the author seems to be as short on evidence as you.


A couple of things I really would like you to explain are these.

Quote:
Insulin is NOT required for fat storage.


In that context, please explain how people can waste away to nothing and die from untreated type 1 diabetes. Based on your statement above that should be impossible unless you have an explanation.

Quote:
You're taking entirely too extremist of a view on insulin/carbs and demonizing them without realizing that calories are what matters.


I would like to present this as a typical example of your arguments here. This looks like special pleading. You are also assuming the conclusion in your premise, which is circular logic.

You need to explain this stuff if you want to convince anyone of anything.


If I'm not mistaken, you were the one essentially claiming that the calorie equation was irrelevant - you then posted a link to a study that has absolutely nothing to back your statement and get upset with me?

You then try to change the entire debate by talking about a DISEASE and how it effects human metabolism? I didn't know we were discussing diabetics. If we were, I wouldn't even have commented, as it's not something that I care to research.

As for my insulin/fat storage comment, I should have stated that carbohydrates intake is NOT required for fat storage. Excess calories get stored in some way, shape or form.

My whole argument here is that the only thing that matters for weight loss is a caloric deficit, nothing else. This has been proven time and time again and any so-called 'experts' who argue that it doesn't matter are clueless and trying to push their own agenda.

Lose weight = Caloric deficit, that simple.

I also think you should read this, as it's a pretty good article

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html

And honestly, as for me having to 'prove' anything - as I said before, I've never seen a single person on these forums PROVE that calories don't matter.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group