"The Biggest Loser" TV show (Calorie control)

Ask and answer questions, discuss research and applications

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, ianjay, stuward

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:21 am

KPj wrote:I don't think a low cal diet is a low carb diet in disguise when you are either penalised or told to avoid protein and fat....

You could technically define a low carb diet as low cal in disguise...

KPj
I said it is when it works. You didn't prove that a low calorie diet can't be low carb, so you really didn't refute what I said. As to your first point you went on to add the qualifier about fat. Then it's a low fat diet. I never said anything about low fat.

A low carb diet can be low in calories. However it works the same without being low cal. So while I agree with your point literally, I don't agree with the insinuation.


I still don't find anecdotes very convincing. Especially those with very few details.

User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Sat Jan 30, 2010 12:24 am

NightFaLL wrote:Here's a few questions I have:

1. What's the required amount of fat a person needs while dieting/not dieting and is it weight dependent?

2. If that number is kept consistent and protein is kept higher or consistent, then wouldn't that only leave carbohydrates left to be removed?

That's how I've always looked at my diet, personally. Which is why I'm 50/10/40 right now.

That is exactly how you change between different types of diets for different goals. You adjust the carbs.

anandsr21
Novice
Novice
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am

Post by anandsr21 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:44 am

Anybody wanting to lose weight easily, must take a long hard look at the paleolithic principle.

Eat what they ate ie eat natural food that paleolithic people ate (avoid neolithic foods, eg grains, refined oil and sugar). Do not skip on fat from healthy meat (grass fed), but avoid the fat on factory meat. Coconut fat is expected to be good. Actually saturated fat is the safest fuel.

Mimic the food availability, ie Vary the routine, eat zero carb some times, low carb most of the time, high carb sometimes, and nothing sometimes.

Exercise like them, ie walk with heavy weights on the back/shoulders, with progressive increase. Run fast for short times. Do a lot of walking. If that is not possible then do the big 5 lifts.

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:18 am

Exercise science has come a long way since the days of 'carrying heavy things' on your back. That form of training would be similar to me doing 1000 pushups a day to develop power/strength/size. Kind of pointless, basically, with the abundance of training that could be substituted for better results.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6600
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:38 am

Except that carrying heavy things on your back has actual applications. If fact this makes up the bulk of the Canadian Army's fitness test.

User avatar
frigginwizard
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 226
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:44 pm

Post by frigginwizard » Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:56 am

I think its important to come to a common sense driven balance between paleo and modern lifestyles.

I agree with a lot of the paleo ideals, but only to the extent that I recognize that everything primitive man did was not optimal.
Some of the things that they did out of necessity were not healthy, and need not be imitated for optimal health.

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:41 pm

stuward wrote:Except that carrying heavy things on your back has actual applications. If fact this makes up the bulk of the Canadian Army's fitness test.
Most military's are behind the fitness learning curve. If you're referring to the packs they carry on their back, I also wouldn't call those 'heavy' loads. ~50lbs?

And I'm not saying it wouldn't get them in *better* shape.

I'm simply saying there are tons more efficient ways of doing things.

NightFaLL
Member
Member
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 12:20 am

Post by NightFaLL » Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:43 pm

frigginwizard wrote:I think its important to come to a common sense driven balance between paleo and modern lifestyles.

I agree with a lot of the paleo ideals, but only to the extent that I recognize that everything primitive man did was not optimal.
Some of the things that they did out of necessity were not healthy, and need not be imitated for optimal health.
This. I think it's about looking at the lifestyle and using modern techniques/information to improve upon it.

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:29 am

NightFaLL wrote:
stuward wrote:Except that carrying heavy things on your back has actual applications. If fact this makes up the bulk of the Canadian Army's fitness test.
Most military's are behind the fitness learning curve. If you're referring to the packs they carry on their back, I also wouldn't call those 'heavy' loads. ~50lbs?

And I'm not saying it wouldn't get them in *better* shape.

I'm simply saying there are tons more efficient ways of doing things.
That misses Stu's poing. Carrying things on the back IS a real-life activity, much more commonly used that pushing heavy things away from your chest, etc.

Post Reply