[quote]MetalMX wrote:
I don’t know about that. If i eat foods with more volume and water i get full pretty quickly such as vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, carrots), Oatmeal and am full for hours.[/quote]
Exactly. You’d be full, but then be forced to eat sooner and more often. In other words, you’d graze.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
[quote]238 wrote:
A lot of vegetables? Low carb content to begin with and quite filling. Then eat protein and fats as required.[/quote]
they’re filling because they are water and fiber. If I wanted to eat 500 calories of spinach, I’d have to finish 4.5lbs worth.
Or I could just eat 6 ozs of cheese.
[/quote]
No kidding, that’s why I suggested it to MetalMX for someone who’s cutting.
Eating for “fullness” is not the way to do it either.
Unfortunately, most people probably have never really learned how to eat properly. And by that I don’t mean what to eat but how to eat. Once a person becomes in tune with his real hunger knowing when to stop eating becomes paramount. There should be no feelings of fullness but rather of satiety. Fullness is too late. Fullness happens to force one to stop eating so that the stomach does not have to do extra work to reject food. Throwing up is not easy on any of the organs involved.
How satiety happens is very complex but it starts in the mouth. All food must be properly chewed before swallowing. Food is considered properly masticated once taste of food becomes undetectable by the tongue. When this happens the enzymes in the saliva can work to not only breakdown food items but also create signaling mechanisms to the brain so it knows it is nutritionally satisfied.
If one is really in-tune with natural hunger one will not feel full before one stops eating but will do it as if by his own will. Notice also it is nearly impossible to salivate with a full stomach. Without saliva pre-digestion of food in he mouth is not possible.
Congratulations, now because you decided to overeat you will have upset digestion and possible loose some of the nutrition in stool if it is not properly digested (or worse, is leaked through a permeable gut and helps contribute to future autoimmune disease).
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Eating for “fullness” is not the way to do it either.
Unfortunately, most people probably have never really learned how to eat properly. And by that I don’t mean what to eat but how to eat. Once a person becomes in tune with his real hunger knowing when to stop eating becomes paramount. There should be no feelings of fullness but rather of satiety. Fullness is too late. Fullness happens to force one to stop eating so that the stomach does not have to do extra work to reject food. Throwing up is not easy on any of the organs involved.
How satiety happens is very complex but it starts in the mouth. All food must be properly chewed before swallowing. Food is considered properly masticated once taste of food becomes undetectable by the tongue. When this happens the enzymes in the saliva can work to not only breakdown food items but also create signaling mechanisms to the brain so it knows it is nutritionally satisfied.
If one is really in-tune with natural hunger one will not feel full before one stops eating but will do it as if by his own will. Notice also it is nearly impossible to salivate with a full stomach. Without saliva pre-digestion of food in he mouth is not possible.
Congratulations, now because you decided to overeat you will have upset digestion and possible loose some of the nutrition in stool if it is not properly digested (or worse, is leaked through a permeable gut and helps contribute to future autoimmune disease).[/quote]
Good Post!
On this IF stuff now, and its amazing how I’ve reprogrammed my brain. Previous every 3-4 hours if I didn’t have a snack, I got light headed with “pangs”. Not anymore. Def appetite is a totally different beast from hunger.
Even in a deficit, I lose more weight faster with less carbs. So I think alot more is going on than just CICO, although it is still #1 variable.
For a recent cut still kept 150g of carbs in though for better pumps in the gym. The eating order was: Buckets of plants > then half pound dead animal flesh > then 2 scoops starch. But time I hit the second scoop, I’m to full AND satisfied to continue.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This means one will have elevated insulin and glucose in the bloodstream. This is a double-whammy that over time will catch up to anyone.[/quote]
You seem unable to differentiate between normal postprandial elevations in blood sugar and chronic hyperglycermia when attempting to make a point.
Show me evidence that transient increases in glucose levels result in a quantifiable degree of toxicity and adverse clinical outcomes in otherwise healthy people.
If you are trying to illustrate that there is some volume and frequency of carbohydrate consumption that can result in deleterious effects over extended periods of time, then I guess the presses are gonna just keep on rolling because that ain’t news.
“All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Not to mention, relying on carbohydrate as fuel makes a person metabolically inefficient at burning it’s preferred fuel source, fat, which leads to more artificially perceived hunger and mental irritation when blood-sugar finally drops.[/quote]
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
How about THIS crazy idea – the body’s preference for nutrient substrate depends on the specific cell, tissue and task. Your RBC’s don’t like lipids and I bet your muscles don’t either if you’re regularly into intense anaerobic work.
As far as blood sugar swings, no one is recommending living off of Doritos and Dr. Pepper.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I actually don’t think most people who eat carbohydrate as a staple in their diet will have much quality in their lives while they are alive - especially if they live past 60.[/quote]
And yet, hundreds of thousands of people who ate sensibly, exercised regularly and abstained from various vices throughout their lives prove you wrong every single day.
You don’t hear about them because they are busy living their lives, not clogging up hospitals, spilling over airplane seats and monopolizing motorized wheelchairs at WalMart.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I still eat carbohydrate. I don’t want to give the idea that I don’t. The difference is for me it is about enjoyment and not for reliance on energy. I indulge occasionally (once every couple of weeks or so).[/quote]
Let us know when your Spartan adherence to your dogmatic belief system finally brings out those abs that numerous bodybuilding/figure competitors (yes, even the natty ones) sport despite their routine “indulgences” in their contest prep.
This includes the people well past their youthful hubris, btw.
[quote]MetalMX wrote:
Fat-adaptation is the normal, preferred metabolic state of the human body.[/quote]
OK, what’s the evidence for this?
[quote]MetalMX wrote:
Sugar-dependency is an abnormal metabolic state that inevitably leads to insulin resistance and chronic disease[/quote]
So sugar = carbohydrate, now?
“Inevitably” just sounds so… final.
Are we talking about Doritos and Dr. Pepper, again?
[quote]MetalMX wrote:
Once you are fat-adapted, your body can effectively burn stored fat for energy throughout the day, and can effectively oxidize dietary fat for energy. Hence less fat will be stored in adipose tissue[/quote]
Your body will burn stored fat throughout the day under most circumstances; as mentioned, we already know that adipose tissue is not an inert, static storage depot. If you are looking to achieve a NET DECREASE in body fat, you must create a caloric deficit.
It doesn’t matter how much body fat you burn if it is just being replaced by the fat in your diet… der.
[quote]MetalMX wrote:
Yeah, but who cares? See above.
[quote]MetalMX wrote:
That means as Dr Mercola pointed out Even a 160 pound person who’s visibly lean at 12% body fat still has 19.2 pounds of animal fat on hand for oxidation. They don’t NEED to eat carbs to fuel they’re activities if they are providing they’re bodies with adequate protein and fats. They will use stored fat as an energy source if they are fat adapted!.
This is NOT a bodybuilding related article. But it can give insight for the purposes of reducing bodyfat effectively.[/quote]
Again, you WILL NOT REDUCE YOUR BODY FAT IF YOU ARE NOT IN A CALORIC DEFICIT. So long as that is achieved, you will quite likely lose fat regardless of whether or not you are “fat adapted” (a ridiculous, albeit catchy, phrase, btw).
[quote]alin wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
Swoleness/fatlossness.
The reason I ask is I’ve seen you defend the calories in - calories out model a few times in the past[/quote]
X2 - would be good to see your thoughts - or in the very least write out YOUR diet/recommendations for losing fat.[/quote]
Well, I am absolutely an endorser of the “calories in/calories out” concept. Of course, I imagine most everyone is, at least at some level… the divide typically starts to occur when LC advocates start espousing some sort of “metabolic advantage” to high fat dieting. Which is nonsense.
For swoleness, I’ll only consider the issue up for debate when I start seeing an appreciable number of people go from skinny to huge on LC/keto diets.
For fat loss, any caloric deficit will get the ball rolling. Macro-wise, it’s really a matter of individual preference; one can get “lean” on bth LF and LC diets, so whatever keeps you feeling good enough to exercise and motivated enough to persevere will get the job done. I know that’s probably a disappointing answer, but it really isn’t rocket surgery and I don’t want to make it sound like it is just so I can feel smart about my opinion.
Now, if you want to get shredded, I know some natty competitors feel that going LC on a prep isn’t a hugely intelligent idea, particularly the closer one gets to being diced. You’d have to ask them for their input as far as that goes, though, since I have extremely little interest in ever competing or getting that lean.
At the risk of starting a major shit storm, I’m pretty much an IIFYM kinda guy, to be honest (obligatory shout out to facko). My macros tend to sit around 30/50/20 P/C/F.
It’s NOT all about calories. Overeating carbohydrate-rich foods WILL prevent a higher percentage of fats from being used for energy, and lead to an increase in fat storage.
Insulin tells your body to store fatty acids and keeps you from burning it as energy!
What makes us fat? Anything that promotes the flow of fatty acids into our fat cells.
What makes us leaner? Anything that helps break down those triglycerides.
INSULIN is the body’s primary regulator of fat metabolism. It is also the primary regulator of LPL (Lipoprotein Lipase) which sits on the membranes of cells and pulls fat into the cell.
The more insulin we secrete the more active LPL is on our fat cells. Therefore when insulin levels go up, we store fat. When insulin levels fall we use that fat for fuel.
It’s both the quality and quantity of carbs in our diets that determine how much fat we accumulate.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]alin wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
Swoleness/fatlossness.
The reason I ask is I’ve seen you defend the calories in - calories out model a few times in the past[/quote]
X2 - would be good to see your thoughts - or in the very least write out YOUR diet/recommendations for losing fat.[/quote]
Well, I am absolutely an endorser of the “calories in/calories out” concept. Of course, I imagine most everyone is, at least at some level… the divide typically starts to occur when LC advocates start espousing some sort of “metabolic advantage” to high fat dieting. Which is nonsense.
For swoleness, I’ll only consider the issue up for debate when I start seeing an appreciable number of people go from skinny to huge on LC/keto diets.
For fat loss, any caloric deficit will get the ball rolling. Macro-wise, it’s really a matter of individual preference; one can get “lean” on bth LF and LC diets, so whatever keeps you feeling good enough to exercise and motivated enough to persevere will get the job done. I know that’s probably a disappointing answer, but it really isn’t rocket surgery and I don’t want to make it sound like it is just so I can feel smart about my opinion.
Now, if you want to get shredded, I know some natty competitors feel that going LC on a prep isn’t a hugely intelligent idea, particularly the closer one gets to being diced. You’d have to ask them for their input as far as that goes, though, since I have extremely little interest in ever competing or getting that lean.
At the risk of starting a major shit storm, I’m pretty much an IIFYM kinda guy, to be honest (obligatory shout out to facko). My macros tend to sit around 30/50/20 P/C/F.[/quote]
Thank you very much for that bud.
I had very decent success on the Anabolic Diet,at first! (I ‘stupidly’ went off it for holidays and when I went back to it, it wasn’t as effective as first time).
I’ve been looking at the writings of Alan Aragon lately and what you’re saying fits in with that.
I think I’m going to go that way, but adjust the carbs to see what works best. The trouble is some no/low carb theories/principles (e.g no bread/chocolates/sugar) seem to make me feel better/healthier. Also WITHOUT carbs, (and those ones particularly) I get less mucous, so don’t want to abandon that.
I guess it’s all about experimenting and finding what works for the individual.
You are parroting GCBC without having looked at the literature, yourself.
It’s a neat and tidy theory as Taubes presents it, but it doesn’t pan out in reality and the research shows it. Even the evidence he presents to support his case contradicts his assertions, at times. His carbohydrate hypothesis is simply not a well-written piece, and anyone who takes the time to critically evaluate the evidence will likely see so.
Heck, even HE (tacitly) admits it by the way he has “tweaked” his theory in response to criticism.
This has been discussed ad nauseum on this forum; unfortunately, I am a full-time student working to pay my bills, so the spare time I have needs to be allotted for my graduate research and not your personal edification. I’ve had at it before and Stronghold has written some excellent stuff here on the topic as well, I believe.
[quote]alin wrote:
I guess it’s all about experimenting and finding what works for the individual.[/quote]
Agreed, and this is really the crux of the issue as I see it.
I don’t want to come across as “hating” on LC diets, as I understand that they DO work, and work well, for some people and particularly various individuals in certain diseased states.
But then, the evidence simply isn’t there to promote it as some sort of panacea for all of our Western ailments. The evidence CERTAINLY isn’t there to demonize an entire macronutrient group… you just can’t shake that assertion with the dozens of cultures who have thrived on high carbohydrate, low fat diets.
The evidence also doesn’t support LC dieting as being superior for weight loss once protein and calories are controlled for. There ARE benefits, sure, but they are incidental to the overall calories consumed and will vary based on the individual.
I think one of the few things JF and I ended up agreeing on around here (back when he still posted) was that, at the end of the day, the only statement that can come as close to a universal truth as we want is to say that it is the degree of refinement to a macro that largely dictates its health effects. Wanna know (probably) the BIGGEST step you can take to ensure a healthful diet? Stick to unrefined foods as much as you can; once that’s taken care of, it really doesn’t matter what you eat so long as it is done sensibly and in accordance with your own unique biology and preferences.
Michael Pollen wrote in The Omnivore’s Dilemma (or was it In Defense of Food??) that the secret it to: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” I honestly feel that, as simple as that sounds, it IS the soundest advice we can hand out wholesale… but I would perhaps go so far as to say the third prong isn’t nearly as essential as the first two.
“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants (if you prefer).”
Good luck with the diet modifications – the AD seems pretty popular and I know many have had success with it. And keep up with reading AA’s stuff; I enjoy most everything he and LM churn out.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]alin wrote:
I guess it’s all about experimenting and finding what works for the individual.[/quote]
Agreed, and this is really the crux of the issue as I see it.
I don’t want to come across as “hating” on LC diets, as I understand that they DO work, and work well, for some people and particularly various individuals in certain diseased states.
But then, the evidence simply isn’t there to promote it as some sort of panacea for all of our Western ailments. The evidence CERTAINLY isn’t there to demonize an entire macronutrient group… you just can’t shake that assertion with the dozens of cultures who have thrived on high carbohydrate, low fat diets.
The evidence also doesn’t support LC dieting as being superior for weight loss once protein and calories are controlled for. There ARE benefits, sure, but they are incidental to the overall calories consumed and will vary based on the individual.
I think one of the few things JF and I ended up agreeing on around here (back when he still posted) was that, at the end of the day, the only statement that can come as close to a universal truth as we want is to say that it is the degree of refinement to a macro that largely dictates its health effects. Wanna know (probably) the BIGGEST step you can take to ensure a healthful diet? Stick to unrefined foods as much as you can; once that’s taken care of, it really doesn’t matter what you eat so long as it is done sensibly and in accordance with your own unique biology and preferences.
Michael Pollen wrote in The Omnivore’s Dilemma (or was it In Defense of Food??) that the secret it to: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” I honestly feel that, as simple as that sounds, it IS the soundest advice we can hand out wholesale… but I would perhaps go so far as to say the third prong isn’t nearly as essential as the first two.
“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants (if you prefer).”
Good luck with the diet modifications – the AD seems pretty popular and I know many have had success with it. And keep up with reading AA’s stuff; I enjoy most everything he and LM churn out.[/quote]
Understand, humans are not bomb calorimeters; I see a red flag when CICO is brought up.
Study human hormone and biochemical interactions more thoroughly and your mind will be more open
[quote]toocul4u wrote:
Understand, humans are not bomb calorimeters; I see a red flag when CICO is brought up.
Study human hormone and biochemical interactions more thoroughly and your mind will be more open
[/quote]
I don’t “know” anonym, but he’s one of the most intelligent posters on this site. Look through his post history, and you’ll realize he most certainly has studied “human hormone and biochemical interactions” at a degree of “thoroughness” you likely can’t imagine. Shit, just his posts in this thread indicate he understands human nutrition on level most here don’t.
[quote]toocul4u wrote:
Understand, humans are not bomb calorimeters; I see a red flag when CICO is brought up.[/quote]
I had a sugary, cordial response to this until I got to your second line… so, to rephrase: I sincerely do not give a shit what you happen to see when CICO is brought up.
[quote]toocul4u wrote:
Study human hormone and biochemical interactions more thoroughly and your mind will be more open[/quote]
Snippy, dismissive and, ultimately, completely devoid of anything that can actually support your opinion.
I have no idea who you are, so you’ll have to excuse me for not feeling the need to go out of my way to qualify myself for you.
Again, this has been discussed at length in previous threads, which have occurred during your time as a member of this site and which are marked by your complete and utter silence on the topic. Please run a search, find the studies posted/critiqued and then come back with something more substantial.
I’m not your secretary and you aren’t paying me tuition, so you’re on your own for the time being.
[quote]anonym wrote:
I think one of the few things JF and I ended up agreeing on around here (back when he still posted) was that, at the end of the day, the only statement that can come as close to a universal truth as we want is to say that it is the degree of refinement to a macro that largely dictates its health effects. Wanna know (probably) the BIGGEST step you can take to ensure a healthful diet? Stick to unrefined foods as much as you can; once that’s taken care of, it really doesn’t matter what you eat so long as it is done sensibly and in accordance with your own unique biology and preferences.
[/quote]
love this. It’s funny how once upon a time fat was considered the most evil substance on earth, and now the focus has shifted to demonise carbohydrate. Vilifying a macronutrient appeals to people’s need for a quick fix. People like to make as little an effort as possible, and cutting carbs isn’t hard. (I’m not saying this applies to anyone in this thread, so don’t anybody get their panties in a bunch)
Cut the refined crap, and health and happiness will follow. How’s that for a quick fix!
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This means one will have elevated insulin and glucose in the bloodstream. This is a double-whammy that over time will catch up to anyone.[/quote]
You seem unable to differentiate between normal postprandial elevations in blood sugar and chronic hyperglycermia when attempting to make a point.
Show me evidence that transient increases in glucose levels result in a quantifiable degree of toxicity and adverse clinical outcomes in otherwise healthy people.
If you are trying to illustrate that there is some volume and frequency of carbohydrate consumption that can result in deleterious effects over extended periods of time, then I guess the presses are gonna just keep on rolling because that ain’t news.
“All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.”
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Not to mention, relying on carbohydrate as fuel makes a person metabolically inefficient at burning it’s preferred fuel source, fat, which leads to more artificially perceived hunger and mental irritation when blood-sugar finally drops.[/quote]
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
How about THIS crazy idea – the body’s preference for nutrient substrate depends on the specific cell, tissue and task. Your RBC’s don’t like lipids and I bet your muscles don’t either if you’re regularly into intense anaerobic work.
As far as blood sugar swings, no one is recommending living off of Doritos and Dr. Pepper.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I actually don’t think most people who eat carbohydrate as a staple in their diet will have much quality in their lives while they are alive - especially if they live past 60.[/quote]
And yet, hundreds of thousands of people who ate sensibly, exercised regularly and abstained from various vices throughout their lives prove you wrong every single day.
You don’t hear about them because they are busy living their lives, not clogging up hospitals, spilling over airplane seats and monopolizing motorized wheelchairs at WalMart.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I still eat carbohydrate. I don’t want to give the idea that I don’t. The difference is for me it is about enjoyment and not for reliance on energy. I indulge occasionally (once every couple of weeks or so).[/quote]
Let us know when your Spartan adherence to your dogmatic belief system finally brings out those abs that numerous bodybuilding/figure competitors (yes, even the natty ones) sport despite their routine “indulgences” in their contest prep.
This includes the people well past their youthful hubris, btw.[/quote]
First off I have to congratulate you on your tenacity.
Secondly, it’s not dogma. It’s simple chemistry.
Some people are lucky with their tolerance to certain chemicals but most are not.
[quote]anonym wrote:
[quote]alin wrote:
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
Swoleness/fatlossness.
The reason I ask is I’ve seen you defend the calories in - calories out model a few times in the past[/quote]
X2 - would be good to see your thoughts - or in the very least write out YOUR diet/recommendations for losing fat.[/quote]
Well, I am absolutely an endorser of the “calories in/calories out” concept. Of course, I imagine most everyone is, at least at some level… the divide typically starts to occur when LC advocates start espousing some sort of “metabolic advantage” to high fat dieting. Which is nonsense.
For swoleness, I’ll only consider the issue up for debate when I start seeing an appreciable number of people go from skinny to huge on LC/keto diets.
For fat loss, any caloric deficit will get the ball rolling. Macro-wise, it’s really a matter of individual preference; one can get “lean” on bth LF and LC diets, so whatever keeps you feeling good enough to exercise and motivated enough to persevere will get the job done. I know that’s probably a disappointing answer, but it really isn’t rocket surgery and I don’t want to make it sound like it is just so I can feel smart about my opinion.
Now, if you want to get shredded, I know some natty competitors feel that going LC on a prep isn’t a hugely intelligent idea, particularly the closer one gets to being diced. You’d have to ask them for their input as far as that goes, though, since I have extremely little interest in ever competing or getting that lean.
At the risk of starting a major shit storm, I’m pretty much an IIFYM kinda guy, to be honest (obligatory shout out to facko). My macros tend to sit around 30/50/20 P/C/F.[/quote]
You actually use the word swoleness and we are supposed to take you seriously?
Swoleness is just glycogen and water retention.
I actually believe the opposite of you.
Calories out, calories in - what do you say to that?
[quote]rds63799 wrote:
[quote]anonym wrote:
I think one of the few things JF and I ended up agreeing on around here (back when he still posted) was that, at the end of the day, the only statement that can come as close to a universal truth as we want is to say that it is the degree of refinement to a macro that largely dictates its health effects. Wanna know (probably) the BIGGEST step you can take to ensure a healthful diet? Stick to unrefined foods as much as you can; once that’s taken care of, it really doesn’t matter what you eat so long as it is done sensibly and in accordance with your own unique biology and preferences.
[/quote]
love this. It’s funny how once upon a time fat was considered the most evil substance on earth, and now the focus has shifted to demonise carbohydrate. Vilifying a macronutrient appeals to people’s need for a quick fix. People like to make as little an effort as possible, and cutting carbs isn’t hard. (I’m not saying this applies to anyone in this thread, so don’t anybody get their panties in a bunch)
Cut the refined crap, and health and happiness will follow. How’s that for a quick fix![/quote]
And yet, nothing has worked as fast as carbohydrate avoidance for undoing all my health issues.
(Of course along with avoiding most carbohydrates I am also avoiding the other naughty chemicals that come with them).
Funny how sweet potatoes have become my candy.
[quote]anonym wrote:
How about THIS crazy idea – the body’s preference for nutrient substrate depends on the specific cell, tissue and task. Your RBC’s don’t like lipids and I bet your muscles don’t either if you’re regularly into intense anaerobic work.[/quote]
Cool story, bro. Just because certain cell tissues cannot utilize lipids doesn’t mean I have to provide glucose to them through my diet.
In fact, glucogon (the hormone responsible for getting glucose from the liver) works best when insulin levels are low - which means glucose utilization will be more stable and steady when not force feeding oneself carbohydrates.