So if it’s just oil, why wouldn’t he just smear coconut oil lightly on the pan? Coconut oil is high in medium chain triglycerides, arguably better for fat-loss on a ketogenic diet.
[quote]DragnCarry wrote:
So if it’s just oil, why wouldn’t he just smear coconut oil lightly on the pan? Coconut oil is high in medium chain triglycerides, arguably better for fat-loss on a ketogenic diet.[/quote]
eh…i suppose you COULD do that, its rather difficult to use as little pure oil as one would use with a spray. I was simply listing ways the OP could cut back on his calorie intake easily and without undergoing a complete dietary overhaul.
To the OP:
The whole whey = insulin surge = fat gain thing is unsubstantiated noise. To reiterate what’s been said by JMoUCF87 and others, you need to re-open the caloric deficit if you want to continue to lose weight (fat). Per-i-od. You’re eating enough fat to feed a third-world country, so start your cutbacks there.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This may explain my problems with whey. It makes me fat and I feel like crap when I take it.
Zap – true with 100% casein as well?
[/quote]
Never tried it but I may. I am struggling to get enough protein with solid foods.
great post Alan.
It’s unfortunate this thread devolved into a bit of a “war of words” (for which I am partially to blame), as that may have turned some people off to the useful information contained herein.
And I hope one day we can move past the whole “carbs raise insulin which causes fat storage” nonsense.
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
great post Alan.
It’s unfortunate this thread devolved into a bit of a “war of words” (for which I am partially to blame), as that may have turned some people off to the useful information contained herein.
And I hope one day we can move past the whole “carbs raise insulin which causes fat storage” nonsense.[/quote]
so what you’re saying is that as long as someone is in a calorie deficit that it is impossible to gain fat from eating sugar? The reason why I questioned you before was mostly about the junk food thing. If it’s included into what your cals for the day are supposed to be then cool, but most people don’t do this. Also,I don’t feel very good when I eat junk food. I don’t think that eating junk food on a regular basis is healthy idea, trans fats, artificial ingredients, etc. I suppose that I agree that you would still lose weight if you were in a calorie deficit. I’d imagine you would have to limit your intake to ensure proper amounts of proteins and fats. I don’t think that elevated insulin levels causing fat gain is nonsense. All I’ll say about that is that having elevated glucose and insulin levels is pretty damn unhealthy, its diabetes.
[quote]latenight_lifter wrote:
so what you’re saying is that as long as someone is in a calorie deficit that it is impossible to gain fat from eating sugar? The reason why I questioned you before was mostly about the junk food thing. If it’s included into what your cals for the day are supposed to be then cool, but most people don’t do this. Also,I don’t feel very good when I eat junk food. I don’t think that eating junk food on a regular basis is healthy idea, trans fats, artificial ingredients, etc. I suppose that I agree that you would still lose weight if you were in a calorie deficit. I’d imagine you would have to limit your intake to ensure proper amounts of proteins and fats. I don’t think that elevated insulin levels causing fat gain is nonsense. All I’ll say about that is that having elevated glucose and insulin levels is pretty damn unhealthy, its diabetes.[/quote]
No one is recommending a junk food diet or a diet of all sugar. Unfortunately, there are some people who always jump to that extreme when it’s stated that calories are what ultimately matter. Saying that calories are what matter is a much different thing than recommending a junk food diet. When the argument is the former, you’re fighting a straw man by attacking the latter.
You’re incorrect if you think that elevated insulin causes fat gain in a caloric deficit. Low fat, higher carb, higher insulin diets work just as well as low carb diets when calories and protein are controlled. Similarly, you can swap out all the low GI carbs in your diet with high GI carbs and fat loss will be the same. Several studies have shown this. The glucose and insulin spikes do NOT make any difference on fat balance. When we’re talking about a diet, it IS nonsense to say that elevated insulin levels causes fat gain. It’s not insulin, but excess calories to blame.
Finally, it’s ridiculous for you to compare diabetes to insulin and glucose levels that are transiently elevated from eating whey protein or carbohydrates. That is NOT diabetes.
Again… time and time again clients come in having done Weight Watchers, Nutrisystem, whatever crap, and not being able to lose weight on them… control their insulin on a high protein, smart fat diet and they drop weight like crazy without being neurotic about their calories (at least at first). Sure, those studies show similar weight loss… but what you are not considering is calorie partitioning. Hormones control this. It is a fact that fat people who are insulin resistant are still insulin sensitive in the FAT CELL. I am not as interested in having someone “lose weight” as I am having them improve their body composition and health, and a shitty high GI high carb diet just doesn’t do that for most people.
As Charles told us, nutrition experts (or you guys, since you pretend to be) tend to recommend what works for THEM; he actually said this in a Question of Strength article. If you want to argue with the man, fine… but I’ll just let you know you are completely ignorant!
[quote]ksommer wrote:
Again… time and time again clients come in having done Weight Watchers, Nutrisystem, whatever crap, and not being able to lose weight on them… control their insulin on a high protein, smart fat diet and they drop weight like crazy [/quote]
What you are describing are two diets with differing protein intakes. Of course a high protein diet will result in more fat loss than the typical Nutrisystem diet of equal caloric intake because the high protein diet will result in less LBM lost.
However, the OP isn’t doing Nutrisystem or Weight Watchers is he? He is already eating a “high protein, smart fat diet”…the problem is he is still eating too much and/or not exercising enough.
So he has a choice to make, add an extra hour of cardio per day, or reduce the fat he is eating by a few hundred calories. It’s his choice, I just think one is a hell of a lot easier than the other.
[quote]ksommer wrote:
without being neurotic about their calories (at least at first).[/quote]
Again, the OP has a choice. Be neurotic about controlling his calories, or be neurotic about controlling his hormones. Calories you have complete control over. With hormones you pretty much have to work with what mommy and daddy gave ya (unless you like sticking needles in your ass). So as we can see, in only one of these instances will your neuroticism pay off in a better body.
[quote]moofs wrote:
IMO its better to drink the shakes then lose 60g of protein on a diet.
quote]
Damn right!
I know your budget is tight, but you might do better to up your protein at the expense of some fat.
Calories are important, rather than try to reduce further you could add in some CV work (low intensity, HIIT, just mix it up a bit to keep thing interesting.)
Loosing 2lb a week is a GREAT result.
FYI
I am currently loosing at around 1.9 lb / week (286lb down to 260lb over 14weeks) I’m not going as low as you on carbs, as low carbs don’t agree with me (~100-150g/day on non-training days and 300-350g/day on training days, I train twice a week- not ideal but its what I can do)
If I can do it (at 48yo) so can you!
[quote]ksommer wrote:
Again… time and time again clients come in having done Weight Watchers, Nutrisystem, whatever crap, and not being able to lose weight on them… control their insulin on a high protein, smart fat diet and they drop weight like crazy without being neurotic about their calories (at least at first). Sure, those studies show similar weight loss… but what you are not considering is calorie partitioning. Hormones control this. It is a fact that fat people who are insulin resistant are still insulin sensitive in the FAT CELL. I am not as interested in having someone “lose weight” as I am having them improve their body composition and health, and a shitty high GI high carb diet just doesn’t do that for most people.
As Charles told us, nutrition experts (or you guys, since you pretend to be) tend to recommend what works for THEM; he actually said this in a Question of Strength article. If you want to argue with the man, fine… but I’ll just let you know you are completely ignorant![/quote]
You’re the one showing the ignorance. Can you do us a favor and argue from a scientific basis rather than an appeal to authority and anecdote? And by the way, there’s plenty of research showing no difference in body composition when cals & protein are matched, or close to it. My advice: be open to becoming more educated; ignorance isn’t always bliss.
Depends on how you see it, not worrying about calories can only return the body to its original homeostasis and its great if you’re looking for BF range of 12-15% which is healthy in most medical sense.
After that what you do is against what the body is hardwired to believe that is ideal. That’s where the calories reduction and extra work needs to be done as the body is already adapted to the intake.
Its more of a question of where are you now? And where do you wish to go kind of thing…if 12-15% bf is where you wish to be and like it there then don’t worry about the plateau, if not then you’d have to look into other strategies.
[quote]weib wrote:
Depends on how you see it, not worrying about calories can only return the body to its original homeostasis and its great if you’re looking for BF range of 12-15% which is healthy in most medical sense.[/quote]
Point me to where anyone in this thread is recommending not worrying about calories.
was just a figure of speech to not be a nutrient nazi and lose sleep over it…
[quote]weib wrote:
was just a figure of speech to not be a nutrient nazi and lose sleep over it…[/quote]
Not being a nutrient nazi is exactly what I and the other rational folks in this thread are arguing against. So, I don’t see how your statements apply to us.
[quote]Alan Aragon wrote:
Point me to where anyone in this thread is recommending not worrying about calories.
[/quote]
Quoting ksommer from page 2 of this thread:
he obviously knows what he’s talking about, HE WAS BIOSIG CERTIFIED!!!11!
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
Alan Aragon wrote:
Point me to where anyone in this thread is recommending not worrying about calories.
Quoting ksommer from page 2 of this thread:
Stop with the shakes. And don’t count calories… for christ’s sake, you’re 25% bf. Your eating just sucked for a long time, and now your hormones are screwed up. Counting calories is for neurotic girls. You will secrete too much cortisol just by thinking about it.
he obviously knows what he’s talking about, HE WAS BIOSIG CERTIFIED!!!11![/quote]
I should have said, point to to anyone of the rational crew (what up, yo) is recommending not worrying about calories. 
gasp you mean I’m a member of The Rational Crew ™ now?
[quote]JMoUCF87 wrote:
gasp you mean member of The Rational Crew ™ now? :-)[/quote]
thows up the R
From “Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism” by Gropper, Smith, and Groff:
“…in 1996 a study found that subjects in a hospital lost similar amounts of weight whether on on a low- (15%) or high- (45%) carbohydrate diet (1). The researchers provided 1000 kcal of energy. Significant decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip ratio occurred in both groups, but the size of these changes was not a function of diet. This finding suggests that the size of the caloric deficit and the length of time that a person is in negative energy balance have the greatest effect on the amount of weight lost.”
- Golay A. Similar weight loss with low- or high-carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr 1996; 63:174-8.