Low Carb Diet...Not Losing Weight

Nutrition
161

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Gymjunkie wrote:
Okay,

For all you that refuse to learn more about anything… in this case, hormone modulation etc rather than simply counting calories.

A week ago I decided to get my biosig test done and got given a few protocols to follow relative to my results, some of which included INCREASING protein, NOT counting fats, which means I ate more than I have been, and DROPPING low intensity cardio altogether.

Now, I had been dieting for 10 weeks prior to the test, slowly dropping calories, increase cardio etc…the same old sht that you all believe is the ONLY way to go about it, and as mentioned earlier, I also had the same understanding up until my past weeks results.

I GAINED weight and caliper readings went down or stayed the same. I GAINED muscle and LOST fat at the same time using the protocols given. This included SOME supplementation, but not much.

I aint no newbie either, so these results from biosignature modulation speak for themselves.

Always be willing to learn more about anything and everything…dont simply make up your mind about something and call others wankers for stating their views/ideas etc.

GJ

I don’t quite follow. How many biosig tests did you do? How long did you follow the protocol?

[/quote]

I had ONE test and have been following the protocol for a week, with great results. But I have been dieting using the “same ol” approach for 10 weeks prior(not my first cut either). Where I WAS dropping calories doing cardio etc.

GJ

162

[quote]Gymjunkie wrote:

Zap Branigan wrote:
Gymjunkie wrote:
Okay,

For all you that refuse to learn more about anything… in this case, hormone modulation etc rather than simply counting calories.

A week ago I decided to get my biosig test done and got given a few protocols to follow relative to my results, some of which included INCREASING protein, NOT counting fats, which means I ate more than I have been, and DROPPING low intensity cardio altogether.

Now, I had been dieting for 10 weeks prior to the test, slowly dropping calories, increase cardio etc…the same old sht that you all believe is the ONLY way to go about it, and as mentioned earlier, I also had the same understanding up until my past weeks results.

I GAINED weight and caliper readings went down or stayed the same. I GAINED muscle and LOST fat at the same time using the protocols given. This included SOME supplementation, but not much.

I aint no newbie either, so these results from biosignature modulation speak for themselves.

Always be willing to learn more about anything and everything…dont simply make up your mind about something and call others wankers for stating their views/ideas etc.

GJ

I don’t quite follow. How many biosig tests did you do? How long did you follow the protocol?

I had ONE test and have been following the protocol for a week, with great results. But I have been dieting using the “same ol” approach for 10 weeks prior(not my first cut either). Where I WAS dropping calories doing cardio etc.

GJ
[/quote]

Please keep us updated.

Thanks

163

Hey GJ,

Which hormone was your dominant to modulate? Insulin?

164

[quote]Gymjunkie wrote:
Okay,

For all you that refuse to learn more about anything… in this case, hormone modulation etc rather than simply counting calories.

A week ago I decided to get my biosig test done and got given a few protocols to follow relative to my results, some of which included INCREASING protein, NOT counting fats, which means I ate more than I have been, and DROPPING low intensity cardio altogether.

Now, I had been dieting for 10 weeks prior to the test, slowly dropping calories, increase cardio etc…the same old sht that you all believe is the ONLY way to go about it, and as mentioned earlier, I also had the same understanding up until my past weeks results.

I GAINED weight and caliper readings went down or stayed the same. I GAINED muscle and LOST fat at the same time using the protocols given. This included SOME supplementation, but not much.

I aint no newbie either, so these results from biosignature modulation speak for themselves.

Always be willing to learn more about anything and everything…dont simply make up your mind about something and call others wankers for stating their views/ideas etc.

GJ

[/quote]
What you presented was a nonblinded case study. Great, I’m glad you got results, but so do people the world over on all kinds of protocols, even idiotic protocols (who woulda thunk it). We can all trade personal testimonies all day long, but guess what? Personal testimonies are subjective. You can find droves of testimonials for any protocol on the planet. We’re discussing the science of the matter here. Objective evidence is way different than, “It works for me, bro!!!1”

165

[quote]ksommer wrote:
JMoUCF87 wrote:
I did look over the full text and noticed that food intake was monitored via self report logs. That pretty much invalidates the study IMO.

People are simply shitty at estimating energy intake. Especially considering these are “average” people (as opposed to hyper-meticulous bodybuilders), the margin of error is probably quite significant.

Even when one measures out servings they often make mistakes, as demonstrated here: - YouTube

finally, I’m no conspiracy theorist, but this is something to note:

“This study was supported by a grant from The Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation, New York, NY.”

Having worked in a nutrition laboratory myself, it is NOT the subjects who calculate the food logs. There is usually someone hired to do JUST that (at least there was on the study I worked on… a single person to do daily food logs for over 200+ subjects).

This person actually contacts the subjects to validate the food logs; if the data seems suspect, we contact the person to get brand, amount… everything. Lots of studies use food logs. Is it the best? No.

Does it invalidate the study? Well, if that’s true, you’re invalidating MANY other studies. Keep in mind these studies are what is called PEER REVIEWED, meaning other scholars review them before they get published.

That means others with higher level degrees (no offense, certainly higher than yours or mine) approved the study and assume it is valid. So, honestly, the fact that you don’t think it is valid really means absolute shit in the scheme of things.

And about the funding of the study; where do you think your beneficial studies regarding low fat diets and calorie restriction come from? Ornish? Pritkin? Probably; just like studies that showed eggs raised cholesterol were done by the cereal board.

Like I said… I recommend actually reading about the authors in question and going in depth with their other work before passing judgment. I am familiar with Volek’s work… you likely aren’t, so I suggest starting with the TNT Diet. [/quote]

Are you still stuck on the study that compared 140g protein vs 77g protein? I asked you to find an isonitrogenous comparison that showed greater fat loss in the less insulinogenic protocol. YOU DIDN’T. Claims (and testimonials) are easy to make, but show me the objective evidence.

166

  1. For those of you who are saying that it is not necessary to go low-carb to lose weight - and, instead, low calorie is what is important relative to energy expenditure - then what do you think of ketosis and ketogenic diets? Are they ‘bunk’ ?

  2. Is it not a true phenomenon where the body can become ‘fat adapted’ ?

  3. What happens to carbs ingested after muscle and liver glycogen fills are stored up?

It sounds like carb loading PWO is a body building dogma, at least from a thread I saw where Dave Barr chimed in about pre-workout nutrition and some research reviewed by Alan Aragon had also been posted.

  1. So, for LEAN GAINS, what is the best timing for ingesting carbs? All pre-workout? All PWO? Pre- and post- workout?

Thanks.

167

From the studies I’ve recently looked at it appears that lower carbohydrate diets are better for people who are insulin resistant.

168

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

  1. For those of you who are saying that it is not necessary to go low-carb to lose weight - and, instead, low calorie is what is important relative to energy expenditure - then what do you think of ketosis and ketogenic diets? Are they ‘bunk’ ?

[/quote]

Ketosis is not necessary for fat loss. It may help some people be more compliant to a diet which is more important.

169

[quote]latenight_lifter wrote:
From the studies I’ve recently looked at it appears that lower carbohydrate diets are better for people who are insulin resistant. [/quote]

I would agree with this. In the case of insulin resistant or diabetic individuals a lower carbohydrate(though not necessarily ketogenic) diet offers health benefits via better blood sugar control.

However, in healthy, weight training men and women I feel prescribing a diet of “meat, veggies, nuts and under 30g carbohydrates” is not only unnecessary, but actually detrimental to performance and appearance.

170

[quote]Gymjunkie wrote:
Okay,

For all you that refuse to learn more about anything… in this case, hormone modulation etc rather than simply counting calories.

A week ago I decided to get my biosig test done and got given a few protocols to follow relative to my results, some of which included INCREASING protein, NOT counting fats, which means I ate more than I have been, and DROPPING low intensity cardio altogether.

Now, I had been dieting for 10 weeks prior to the test, slowly dropping calories, increase cardio etc…the same old sht that you all believe is the ONLY way to go about it, and as mentioned earlier, I also had the same understanding up until my past weeks results.

I GAINED weight and caliper readings went down or stayed the same. I GAINED muscle and LOST fat at the same time using the protocols given. This included SOME supplementation, but not much.

I aint no newbie either, so these results from biosignature modulation speak for themselves.

Always be willing to learn more about anything and everything…dont simply make up your mind about something and call others wankers for stating their views/ideas etc.

GJ

[/quote]

Biosig. hehe ghey voodoo.

171

Usually you don’t keep the client on that type of diet (ketogenic) for very long at all. All you are looking for is the adaptation. Fruit is the first thing to come back, and there are also generally scheduled carb-ups, assuming the person isn’t completely sedentary.

I fail to see how the difference in protein makes up for the differential in fat loss. You are the ones arguing about being a nutrient nazi; since calories are all that matters, where is your argument now? Oh, they need to have the same protein. So now, protein, and calories, matter. Soon it will be they were consuming too much fat. Then not enough carbs… etc. etc. I don’t see a point in discussing this with you further, Alan.

I admitted it was not isonitrogenous, and asked why it mattered… and was not given an answer. When you consider the other variables (it was surely less insulinogenic), it meets the other criteria for sufficiently backing up what I am saying - unless you can give me a good reason why it must be isonitrogenous while still supporting your own claim (which I’d be interested in hearing, especially since it seems as though carbs are “protein-sparing”).

172

[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:

  1. For those of you who are saying that it is not necessary to go low-carb to lose weight - and, instead, low calorie is what is important relative to energy expenditure - then what do you think of ketosis and ketogenic diets? Are they ‘bunk’ ?[/quote]

Ketosis and ketogenic diets are not appropriate for weight training individuals. Period. To keep up strength and intensity in the gym you need to add in periodic carb ups or refeeds either around training (as in a Targeted Ketogenic Diet) or every 7 days or so (such as in a Cyclical Ketogenic Diet).

You already are “fat adapted”. What do you think fat is there for? it’s used as fuel for the body to cover energy deficits. Burning fat is simply a product of lowered energy intake.

Furthermore, fat can never be used as fuel for anaerobic exercise. It cannot be converted to energy fast enough. Anyone who tells you otherwise is uninformed or lying.

They are burned as fuel. Meanwhile, while your body is running off ingested carbohydrates, the fat you eat is easily stored in your fat cells. This is what Jen Health wrote about it in a recent article at FA:

"The fact is that carbs don’t really, directly, cause fat gain.

Glucose is preferentially stored in the liver and muscles rather than converted to fat. It can be converted into fat under extremely high intakes for prolonged periods of time, but that doesn’t really happen to a great degree.

What does happen is that an increase in insulin and glucose causes more of the fat we eat to be stored, and less of your stored bodyfat to be burned. So, you can see how things can get lost in translation."

The typical weight training workout doesn’t typically burn a ton of glycogen, so there isn’t much need to slam a huge amount of carbs post workout. however it is a good idea to eat carbs post workout, as it helps initiate the recovery process.

[quote]4) So, for LEAN GAINS, what is the best timing for ingesting carbs? All pre-workout? All PWO? Pre- and post- workout?
[/quote]

Lean gains is primarily about not using a “bulking phase” as an excuse to stuff your face. It will be a result of eating just enough above maintenance to support muscle growth, but not so much that you end up getting fat. “The Truth About Bulking” is a pretty good article about this.

Carbs should be placed around an intense workout, but that doesn’t mean they cant be placed in other meals too (even gasp pre-bed meals)

A good strategy to use is to eat at maintenance on off days, but add pre/post workout nutrition ( maybe ~500 calories of P+C) on weight training days. John Berardi has mentioned this as a strategy he uses with his clients.

173

[quote]ksommer wrote:
Usually you don’t keep the client on that type of diet (ketogenic) for very long at all. All you are looking for is the adaptation. Fruit is the first thing to come back, and there are also generally scheduled carb-ups, assuming the person isn’t completely sedentary.

I fail to see how the difference in protein makes up for the differential in fat loss. You are the ones arguing about being a nutrient nazi; since calories are all that matters, where is your argument now? Oh, they need to have the same protein. So now, protein, and calories, matter. Soon it will be they were consuming too much fat. Then not enough carbs… etc. etc. I don’t see a point in discussing this with you further, Alan.

I admitted it was not isonitrogenous, and asked why it mattered… and was not given an answer. When you consider the other variables (it was surely less insulinogenic), it meets the other criteria for sufficiently backing up what I am saying - unless you can give me a good reason why it must be isonitrogenous while still supporting your own claim (which I’d be interested in hearing, especially since it seems as though carbs are “protein-sparing”).[/quote]

Do me a favor, point to where anyone said that calories are all that matters.

I have always said that sufficient protein is a MUST is you want to keep your muscle on a diet. My position hasn’t changed.

174

If you can agree that two diets with different macronutrient compositions yet the same caloric content will have a different result…

…then we are wasting our time. Period.

175

[quote]ksommer wrote:
If you can agree that two diets with different macronutrient compositions yet the same caloric content will have a different result…

…then we are wasting our time. Period.[/quote]

hehe u r dum

176

[quote]ksommer wrote:
If you can agree that two diets with different macronutrient compositions yet the same caloric content will have a different result…

…then we are wasting our time. Period.[/quote]

From the very beginning I have stated that when two diets of equal caloric intake are compared, the diet higher protein diet will elicit greater fat loss due to the muscle sparing effect of higher protein intake.

This has been my position from the very start, hence why I told the OP specifically NOT to drop the protein shakes, but cut back on the fat he was eating to increase the deficit.

It is you and your buddy laroyal (who apparently has taken his ball and run home) who are wasting everyone’s time by arguing from a position of ignorance and superstition.

177

[quote]ksommer wrote:
If you can agree that two diets with different macronutrient compositions yet the same caloric content will have a different result…

…then we are wasting our time. Period.[/quote]

Nobody said that macronutrient ratios aren’t important - they’re just not as important (in fact, FAR less important) than total caloric intake.

-C10

178

I’m glad this thread has popped up. It has made me go back and rethink my beliefs on fat loss. So far pretty much everyone agrees that protein intake should be high to avoid muscle catabolism while dieting. It also seems that those who are insulin resistant respond to lower carb diets better than others.

Then things get mirky… Alan Aragon and jmou say that calorie deficit is the overall factor in fat loss. While ksommer and laroyal claim that there is more to it in terms of macronutrient breakdown and hormones/biosignature analysis.

I think that an energy deficit is essential, otherwise why would your body want to liberate stored fatty acids? I also think that hormones are a huge player in fat loss. For example, the down regulation of leptin after extended periods of dieting.

The argument seems to lie in macronutrient breakdown. As I stated before, some studies seem to indicate that those who are insulin resistant do better on lower carb diets. But what about those who are insulin sensitive? It seems that it doesn’t matter as much as long as a kcal deficit is present. About the carb/fat mixing. That doesn’t seem to matter much either with the exception of the mixing of saturates and carbs, but if there’s a deficit will it matter that much?

I think what ksommer and laroyal are trying to say is that the methods they are using cause a partitioning effect… muslce tissue gets nourished and adipocytes don’t. Obviously what they are saying is more complicated.

I would like to hear more from both sides about specific methods to increase fat loss. This discussion can only help people.

Laroyal and ksommer: what are your thoughts on calorie deficit?

Alan and jmou: what are your thoughts on partitioning?

179

[quote]ksommer wrote:
I fail to see how the difference in protein makes up for the differential in fat loss.[/quote]

Sadly, I don’t think you’re joking.

180

[quote]latenight_lifter wrote:
I think that an energy deficit is essential, otherwise why would your body want to liberate stored fatty acids? [/quote]

precisely.

I believe that the activity of hormones has more to do with energy intake. For example, when someone overeats the body upregulates various fat storing hormones in response to the incoming caloric surplus. In the case of dieting, less energy is coming into the body (or more is going out due to increased activity) the body’s fat mobilizing hormones are put into play to cover the deficit by tapping into energy reserves(fat)

Correct, C+F mixing won’t make you fat in a deficit. macro breakdown makes very little, if any, difference under equal calorie/protein conditions.

[quote]
Alan and jmou: what are your thoughts on partitioning? [/quote]

Partitioning (or P-ratio) is probably about 90% determined by genetics. Simply being active and exercising has an effect by improving muscle tissue insulin sensitivity. Also, the principles of nutrient timing (i.e. consuming a C+P meal soon after weight training) is a good idea. Beyond that, there isn’t too much one can do to improve partitioning beyond what their momma gave them.

With regards to leptin levels and slowed metabolism, shifting around macros won’t do anything to fix those unless you bump up the calories as well.

This is why it is not a good idea to be perpetually dieting. A good rule of thumb is spend 6-8 weeks in a deficit, then increase the calories (to maintenance levels) and carbs (100g per day minimum) for a couple weeks to correct thyroid etc.

If you still need to drop fat, go into a deficit for another 6-8 weeks or until you reach your goal.

The bottom line is an energy surplus/deficit will have a greater impact on ones hormonal environment than eating specific foods or taking certain supplements.