Go Back   FitDay Discussion Boards > WEIGHT LOSS > Weight Loss Tips
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-05-2012, 08:17 PM   #11 (permalink)
Super Moderator
 
01gt4.6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Slidell, Louisiana
Posts: 7,463
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny View Post
Also, the researchers say that if 'eat fewer calories than you use' worked, fewer people would be overweight and all diets would work for any person. They don't.
I'm also not trying to argue, and you make some valid points, but I think that research you quoted is wrong.

Today, we live in a society of lazy people. I think we can all agree that the number of overweight/obese people has grown over the years.

20 years ago kids use to go out and play, now they sit inside and play video games (consuming more calories than they burn). Same thing can be said for adults.

So I think it's safe to say that as a whole, we (society in general) consume a bigger surplus of calories than we did 20 years ago, which is a DIRECT reason for there being more overweight/obese people than ever.
01gt4.6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 08:40 PM   #12 (permalink)
FitDay Member
 
VitoVino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: 86
Posts: 1,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by handcycle2005 View Post
I could not function on a low carb diet. I'm in the gym 1 1/2 hours a day and ride 120-150 miles a week.
Low carb may work for specific situations but I really dislike the faddism that surrounds "miracle" diets in general.
What % of carbs do you take in, HC? Like I said, 55-60% seems to work for me with my cardio workouts. Do you get the same? Have you noticed if you don't get enough carbs that it effects your endurance?
__________________
Vito



Think of food as fuel for the body instead of feeding emotions
VitoVino is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 08:45 PM   #13 (permalink)
FitDay Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitoVino View Post
I agree with you, Michael. It's a basic law and it stands as such.

To argue against a basic law such as this is like arguing that the sun might not rise tomorrow morning. It's an impossible case to make so why bother. Explain that argument to all the starving people in third world countries who are definitely taking in less calories than they burn; all lose weight.
And, at a certain point, they stop losing and stay the same--even though their calorie intake continues to be much less than they use. Some of the recent studies were done using that type of information.
volleyballgranny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 08:51 PM   #14 (permalink)
FitDay Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 135
Default

PS: One of the things I read was a 30 page compilation of about 150 studies done over the last 30 years. It included studies on starvation (such as refugee camps), anorexia, and other eating disorders--where, at some point, the weight loss stopped, but the shutdown of vital organs continued. It was very interesting...
volleyballgranny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 08:58 PM   #15 (permalink)
FitDay Member
 
wildbeanerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,517
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny View Post
PS: One of the things I read was a 30 page compilation of about 150 studies done over the last 30 years. It included studies on starvation (such as refugee camps), anorexia, and other eating disorders--where, at some point, the weight loss stopped, but the shutdown of vital organs continued. It was very interesting...

At the point where the weight loss stopped even though they burned more calories than they ate in the situations you are referencing the people were starving. There is a huge difference between starvation and trying to lose weight. And their organs continued to shutdown. They probably couldn't weigh any less because that was the weight of their skeleton, skin & organs.
__________________
April - 35yr 5'10" mom of two teen boys

331.2 lbs 02.21.11 (start) size 28W-30W jeans
229.2 lbs 08.06.12 (best so far) size 16W
263.4 lbs 03.03.14 (current)

Progress 67.8 lbs - 20% of my original weight

Pictures...
New Collage April 2012

You are never too old to set another goal or to dream a newdream. ... CS Lewis
wildbeanerz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 09:11 PM   #16 (permalink)
FitDay Member
 
handcycle2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Turlock, Ca
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitoVino View Post
What % of carbs do you take in, HC? Like I said, 55-60% seems to work for me with my cardio workouts. Do you get the same? Have you noticed if you don't get enough carbs that it effects your endurance?
Somewhere around 70% give or take, on about 3800 calories a day.

Protein runs around 10%, fat 20%
Edited to add: Yes, my performance suffers without enough carbs.
__________________
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the Gift."
Steve Prefontaine

Last edited by handcycle2005; 01-05-2012 at 09:27 PM.
handcycle2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 10:27 PM   #17 (permalink)
FitDay Premium Member
 
RunbikeSki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VitoVino View Post
You enjoy running. I'm curious as to what % of carbs you can operate efficiently on while maintaining your running.
I can actually function quite well on 20% carbs as long as I have enough total calories. It takes me a couple of weeks for my body to adapt, but once it did 10 milers on 20% carbs @ 1200 calories was doable. I've never been able to go lower that 20%.

As I've been told, most average atheletes only store about 30 minutes of glycogen in muscles and a bit more in the liver (HC you can probably chime in on this). After 30 minutes of continued aerobic work, the body starts switching over to the fat reserves, but the conversion of tri-glycerides to glucose is not as efficient as burning the glycogen stores, thus you eventually tire. In any event, if you don't eat much after your run, your body will continue to work off the fat reserves to restore glycogen. Training does many things, among them is improving that efficiency at extracing glucose from fat. No doubt, some people are physiologically better at adapting to low carb diets than others. That's the basis behind "eating according to blood type". An interesting concept, but LOTS more research needs to be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny View Post
I spent about 20 years participating in competitive volleyball, basketball, and softball on 11-15% carbs (all from vegetables and dairy products). It worked for me. My body was leaner, less fat, than many of my competitors, though I was not thin. My endurance we better than those who tanked up on carbs and then crashed. The protein gave me a longer 'burn.' FYI:
I do low carb because it helped stave off diabetes (originally diagnosed with hypoglycemia) for 32 years. Now, when I measure blood glucose (fasting and after meals), I can see an immediate impact whenever I add carbs back in my diet. My body cannot handle wheat or corn--it used to make me fat, now it makes me sick. After the last hospital stay (of 5) last Spring, I don't even try small portions of wheat and corn any more.

One of the things that researchers are beginning to say is that our concept of weight loss--eat fewer calories than you use to lose weight--is not valid (by itself) because there are other things that impact weight loss, such as heredity and vitamin deficiency. Also, the researchers say that if 'eat fewer calories than you use' worked, fewer people would be overweight and all diets would work for any person. They don't.
I too find that a higher protein diet gives me a longer 'burn' once I have adapted. At that point carb loading for a race just doesn't work for me - infact it backfires and I get sluggish. One of my long time running buddies who switched from a high carb/vegan diet to a low carb vegetarian diet with lots of veggie protein sources has noted the same thing. She says she has a lot more stamina and endurance.

Volleyball, it would appear that you have a gluten intolerance, which is a complicating factor in the carb vs no carb debate. I would agree that some diets work better for one person than it does for another. Part of that is that "the best diet is the one you can stick to". If you are not much of a carnivore doing paleo just won't work for you. But I also think that there is a hereditary component to food tolerences and metabolism. And as a number of us post menapausal-types can tell you metabolic rates definitely change with time and age.

Quote:
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny View Post
And, at a certain point, they stop losing and stay the same--even though their calorie intake continues to be much less than they use. Some of the recent studies were done using that type of information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volleyballgranny View Post
PS: One of the things I read was a 30 page compilation of about 150 studies done over the last 30 years. It included studies on starvation (such as refugee camps), anorexia, and other eating disorders--where, at some point, the weight loss stopped, but the shutdown of vital organs continued. It was very interesting...
This definitely happens, but the science that explains it this is far from complete. At some point most bodies revert to consuming fat and muscle in an attempt to maintain, primarily, the brain. There were not may svelt people rescued from Dachau.

The whole starvation below 1200 calories is a protective guideline that the AMA has adopted - according to my diet doc. As with all medical guidelines its goal is to be as protective of the "average" person as possible. Unfortunetly the "average" person doesn't really exist, so for me his recommendation was closer to 1000 cals which worked just fine - as long as I could maintain it . 1000 cal ain't much food.
__________________
Pam
5'4" 55yr

2.5 years, 45 pounds later... 128ish pounds
RunbikeSki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2012, 11:11 PM   #18 (permalink)
FitDay Member
 
handcycle2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Turlock, Ca
Posts: 301
Default

Glycogen stores are generally enough for 2-3 hours of running depending on training volume, running speed, running efficiency and a number of other factors. Hence "hitting the wall" at around twenty miles in a marathon.
The average athlete store between 300-450 grams with highly trained endurance athletes having levels as high as 750 grams.

With training, the % of fat to carbs burned can improve some(along with in-race feeding of carbs) thus enabling runners to complete a marathon without depleting.

Only a tiny percentage of fat can be converted to glucose(<10%) which accounts for the abrupt slowdown that accompanies hitting the wall. Fuel cannot be burned fast enough to go faster.

Protein can be converted to glucose more easily but not as well as carbs so a high protein diet could provide enough though it can be hard on the kidneys for some.

RbS, vegetarian sources of protein are generally high in carbs as well. Has your friend really totaled up what she's getting? It's not a bad thing as she would be getting complex carbs rather than simple carbs or refined sugar.
__________________
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the Gift."
Steve Prefontaine
handcycle2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 04:29 AM   #19 (permalink)
FitDay Premium Member
 
RunbikeSki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 2,042
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by handcycle2005 View Post
RbS, vegetarian sources of protein are generally high in carbs as well. Has your friend really totaled up what she's getting? It's not a bad thing as she would be getting complex carbs rather than simple carbs or refined sugar.
HC, yeah, I know what you mean. But, she is very small, so over all intake is pretty low to begin with and she leans towards a lot of eggs and whey powder shakes (too many IMO - but I'm not her). I've seen her equivalent to FD and I don't really know how she does it... but she does.
__________________
Pam
5'4" 55yr

2.5 years, 45 pounds later... 128ish pounds
RunbikeSki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2012, 04:55 AM   #20 (permalink)
FitDay Member
 
handcycle2005's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Turlock, Ca
Posts: 301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RunbikeSki View Post
HC, yeah, I know what you mean. But, she is very small, so over all intake is pretty low to begin with and she leans towards a lot of eggs and whey powder shakes (too many IMO - but I'm not her). I've seen her equivalent to FD and I don't really know how she does it... but she does.
It might be that her protein intake is high enough that the extra being converted to carbs is enough for her.

Someone that small will burn fewer calories per mile.

Also effort level is a factor-running at 65% of MHR will use a higher percentage of fat for energy that running tempo at 85% so fewer carbs are needed to fuel endurance training.
__________________
"To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the Gift."
Steve Prefontaine
handcycle2005 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
low carb, weight loss tips

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.3.2