# Low Carb v Normal diet



## Kid Billy (Oct 21, 2013)

Been on low carb diet for a while now and to be honest it's starting to do my head in, even with a refeed day per week.

I'm now thinking of going back to a diet with carbs but worried about a couple of things:

1. Main reason I'm worried about gaining the weight back I have lost.

2. Obviously the low carb philosophy sounds good with burning fat as main energy source so going back to using carbs as a main source before getting to the fat burning phase is making me not want to go back to the normal diet.

Main thing I'm wondering is can I burn just as much fat on a diet with carbs as I can on low carb diet in the same amount of time.


----------



## Growing Lad (Feb 14, 2009)

Aslong as your healthy and don't have a metabolic condition (as these people can benefit from low carb) then sure you can add carbs in but would have to lower fats to make the difference up in calories, to continue losing at same rate.

Fat loss is down to sustaining a calorie deficit and meeting essential macro requirements. 1g protein per pound and 0.4g fat per pound is about right. Fill the remaining calories with carbs or whatever macro you favour


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

If you want to lose fat fast and efficiently you MUST go low to zero carb, if you want to do it over 12 weeks then keep in carbs.

Without carbs you can do in 4-5 weeks what you can with carbs still in.


----------



## kf_ukbff (May 26, 2014)

Post a pic. If you're lean enough refeed more frequently


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

No problem at all adding in either an extra refeed per week or carbs to each day so long as you adjust other macros so as not to increase overall calories.

Unless you have poor insulin sensitivity and are also highly inactive carbs will not be detrimental to cutting.

One tip though - if thinking of adding in more than 50g or so, stagger the increase over a few weeks. This will limit or even totally prevent the temporary carb reintroduction issues some people get such as quick water bloat and stomach distress from suddenly overwhelming depleted intestinal bacteria with their fav energy and having them go crazy. You will likely experience a weight fluctuation anyway though through altered fluid balance - but don't panic, it's just water not fat gain and will stabilise fast.

If the carbs you reintroduce are unprocessed and high fibre then you may well actually see a small increase in the rate of fat loss if those carbs replace dietary fats through higher thermic effect of food. If the carbs are fibrous then you won't suddenly get erratic swings in blood sugar, another common symptom when people reintroduce a lot of carbs fast, especially after being ketogenic or very low carb which is a diet that often worsens insulin sensitivity (but you don't notice that whilst on it because you aren't eating enough carbs to express the symptoms).


----------



## Charlee Scene (Jul 6, 2010)

Carbs don't make you fat, eating to much calories do,

Try this

500 cals below your tdee

1g protein per lb bw

0.4g fat per lb bw

Rest fill with carbs or more protein or fat it's up to you


----------



## f4tb0y (Jan 11, 2014)

Calories in < calories out = weight loss

Everyone is looking for some sort of magic formulae that defies the above, it's impossible.

Get your protein, make up the rest with a combination of carbs and fats, stick with it a long as it takes, job done.


----------



## simonthepieman (Jun 11, 2012)

Google reverse dieting. Alternative hire @dtlv as a coach


----------



## Kid Billy (Oct 21, 2013)

kf_ukbff said:


> Post a pic. If you're lean enough refeed more frequently


I'm no where near lean enough mate, still at at least 20%BF


----------



## Kid Billy (Oct 21, 2013)

simonthepieman said:


> Google reverse dieting. Alternative hire @dtlv as a coach


I wish i could afford a coach mate :sad:


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

banzi said:


> If you want to lose fat fast and efficiently you MUST go low to zero carb, if you want to do it over 12 weeks then keep in carbs.
> 
> Without carbs you can do in 4-5 weeks what you can with carbs still in.


Numerous studies have shown no significant difference between high carb/low fat and low carb/high fat diets, provided total calories are the same. Some individuals function better on high or low carbs, which allows them to be more active & thus burn more calories, but it all comes down to caloric deficit.

You lose more weight on low carbs because you run down muscle glycogen, which is 75-80% water.

Personally I hate low carbs, and will cut on a diet of 35-40% carbs.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Numerous studies have shown no significant difference between high carb/low fat and low carb/high fat diets, provided total calories are the same. Some individuals function better on high or low carbs, which allows them to be more active & thus burn more calories, but it all comes down to caloric deficit.
> 
> You lose more weight on low carbs because you run down muscle glycogen, which is 75-80% water.
> 
> Personally I hate low carbs, and will cut on a diet of 35-40% carbs.


I pay no attention at all to "studies" they dont really tell you anything about you as an individual.

You have found that carbs are a requirement for you and therefore leave them in, some people dont need them and can cope with a harsh diet.

You say you hate low carbs, but does low carbs get the job done quicker?


----------



## dann19900 (Dec 29, 2012)

dtlv said:


> No problem at all adding in either an extra refeed per week or carbs to each day so long as you adjust other macros so as not to increase overall calories.
> 
> Unless you have poor insulin sensitivity and are also highly inactive carbs will not be detrimental to cutting.
> 
> ...


Write your own book, every post you make sends me googling for 10 minutes looking at what you're saying, I'll have to stop reading them soon lol


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

banzi said:


> I pay no attention at all to "studies" they dont really tell you anything about you as an individual.
> 
> You have found that carbs are a requirement for you and therefore leave them in, some people dont need them and can cope with a harsh diet.
> 
> You say you hate low carbs, but does low carbs get the job done quicker?


If you ever end up in hospital with a life threatening condition, you'd better hope that the doctors treating you don't share your dismissive attitude to science, because if they do then you will probably die.

Studies tell you what a typical human being is like - something that you have a much greater chance of being than not being. An intelligent person would learn what the 'norm' is, then try to work out if they deviate from it at all.

It's not a question of 'coping with a harsh diet' like it's some kind of test of manliness. More insulin sensitive people like myself can cope with high carbs, but don't go into ketosis as easily, and shut down on low carb diets.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Major Eyeswater said:


> If you ever end up in hospital with a life threatening condition, you'd better hope that the doctors treating you don't share your dismissive attitude to science, because if they do then you will probably die.
> 
> Studies tell you what a typical human being is like - something that you have a much greater chance of being than not being. An intelligent person would learn what the 'norm' is, then try to work out if they deviate from it at all.


Yet all the studies in the world tell you nothing about you, unless you are part of the study of course.

I have read text book after textbook about what "should happen" if you do this or this, regarding diet and training.

I seldom found it was all true, sure, some of it pans out as the books say but I have done things that turn the science books upside down and still its worked.

70s bodybuilders used to eat very low cals and low carbs and they had the best looking physiques, tight waists and vacuum abs, just look at the guys today throwing in high carbs and lots of cals.

Shambles.

It depends on your goals I suppose.


----------



## JuggernautJake (Nov 6, 2013)

banzi said:


> Yet all the studies in the world tell you nothing about you, unless you are part of the study of course.
> 
> I have read text book after textbook about what "should happen" if you do this or this, regarding diet and training.
> 
> ...


I have to admit, this is an attitude I am gradually moving more and more towards. Coming from an exercise science background, I do like research and evidence but I agree with the fact that we are so bio diverse everything is unique...time and time again i've been told if I do this, this will happen to me and it doesn't...calories in vs calories out DOES not work for me on its own for cutting, its just too basic on its own...the macros are much more important low carb, high pro, high fat then a calorie spike to refresh....BUT I still have to adhere to the laws of thermodynamics by consuming less calories then I burn.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

banzi said:


> Yet all the studies in the world tell you nothing about you, unless you are part of the study of course.


Ah - so you prefer your science 'bro' style. As I said earlier, medicine works by taking the results of studies on small numbers of people & applying them to populations as a whole. It's not a foolproof process and it sometimes gets things wrong, but it's a damn sight better as a methodology than applying trial & error to each individual patient.



> 70s bodybuilders used to eat very low cals and low
> 
> carbs and they had the best looking physiques, tight waists and vacuum abs, just look at the guys today throwing in high carbs and lots of cals.


By the mid 1980's, they had almost all switched over to very high carb diets, and they were coming into contests absolutely shredded. Many of the pros at the time who had competed in the 70's would enthusiastically endorse the new nutritional standards, because they felt much better on high carbs. I remember reading all those articles in Boidybuilding Monthly & Flex.

Bodybuilders today tend to eat less carbs & more protein/fat than they did in the 80's, when a 25% protein / 60% carb / 15% fat was the gold standard that all the pros used to talk about. They are bigger now (and I would agree not as attractive to look at) because of the type & quantity of PEDs they use, and the sheer total of calories.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Ah - so you prefer your science 'bro' style. As I said earlier, medicine works by taking the results of studies on small numbers of people & applying them to populations as a whole. It's not a foolproof process and it sometimes gets things wrong, but it's a damn sight better as a methodology than applying trial & error to each individual patient.


No I prefer trial and error on my part.

Example

I can maintain my weight at 210lbs at 8 or 9% BF at 5'10 on less than 2000 cals a day

What?

Science says thats not possible, my BMR must be more than that surely?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

People often mis-read science IMO.

The main thing that makes me shake my head is how most people use studies to 'prove points', especially on forums and by bloggers who always have a particular angle. Taking a single study and quoting its result as proof of something, or applying it to self immediately, is not how to use clinical data and is not what studies are for. The best way to use clinical trials in research is not to take single trials with eye catching results but all the studies you can possibly find on a topic and pool the information and to look for trends, patterns within the trends, and nul effects. Very important too is not to just look at the average, but to also look at the variety of different individual responses that make up the average.

Two points to clarify what I mean and why its so important. In example - when you look at most studies of a fixed duration that compare some kind of low-ish carb diet to a higher carb one and measure fat loss, usually the average for the diets will be pretty similar with a slightly better average loss for the low carb.

However, when you look at all the individual subjects data and not the average, provided the sample size is more than just a few people, you always see some people on the high carb diet that out perform the average for the low carb group, and some people who are way below it. Likewise in the low carb group there will be some people who respond incredibly well and some who respond poorly and worse than the average for the higher carbers.

The average therefore does not really tell you anything about how an individual will respond, it merely tells you what the average is likely to be over a large population of people similar to the subjects used in conditions similar to the trial. How any individual might respond is still not certain.

Another example is the common "science shows 1.8g protein per 1kg body weight as the top beneficial protein intake for resistance trained athletes, with no obvious value to excess." claim. That's not quite true, as 1.8g per 1kg is actually the average figure from those trials. Just like the high carbs/low carbs example above, in reaching that average there are some people who seem to need far less than the average, and some who need a lot more.

Does this mean though that recommendations such as 1.8g P per 1kg B/w are useless? Does it mean averages are useless and you need to just try everything and see what happens? Not at all!

It means that 1.8g/kg is likely to be a very decent mid point and the best place to start - but if it doesn't work well at that intake not to say "humph, those studies are all useless - experiments with my own body tell me I need closer to 3g", but rather to say "ah ok, lets try higher or lower." Then when finding out where you are saying "ok, for some reason I seem to be on the high end of the range that produced that average - lets go back to the data and see if I can find something in common with other 'high dose needers' that explains why, and lets also look at the data to see if those who need less are doing something I'm not." If not interested in figuring out the 'why' then it's all good but the idea should be "this works for me but I recognise that due to factors uncertain it may not be the same for many others" and not "this works for me, science is sh1t, and everyone should do what I do".

That is how scientific method intends interpretation and use of data. Unfortunately too many people don't look at it the right way. Lay people who haven't studied statistical methods in science and scientific methodology are kind of excused for not knowing how to read science IMO (as they sure as heck don't teach it properly in school), but those who aren't excused are the health professionals and pseudoscience bloggers who are clueless about it but who claim authority. Unfortunately there do seem to be way too many 'experts' who are well qualified and/or well read and are literate in respect of nutritional science, biochem or physiology but who clearly don't know how to read data or how to interpret or present it - and thus their conclusions are off and when they spread their ideas pseudoscience is born - and people fall 'out of love' with science because what they are told by those people doesn't match up to what they observe in real life.


----------



## JuggernautJake (Nov 6, 2013)

dtlv said:


> People often mis-read science IMO.
> 
> The main thing that makes me shake my head is how most people use studies to 'prove points', especially on forums and by bloggers who always have a particular angle. Taking a single study and quoting its result as proof of something, or applying it to self immediately, is not how to use clinical data and is not what studies are for. The best way to use clinical trials in research is not to take single trials with eye catching results but all the studies you can possibly find on a topic and pool the information and to look for trends, patterns within the trends, and nul effects. Very important too is not to just look at the average, but to also look at the variety of different individual responses that make up the average.
> 
> ...


right its all about interpreting the data and conducting your own "studies" through experience, experimenting, changing variables etc becoming your own scientist...like the example you gave about protein intake, I have obviously based my current intake first and foremost on research, but tweaked it slightly to see if I can find my own personal sweet spot...is this what you are saying in essence?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

JuggernautJake said:


> right its all about interpreting the data and conducting your own "studies" through experience, experimenting, changing variables etc becoming your own scientist...like the example you gave about protein intake, I have obviously based my current intake first and foremost on research, but tweaked it slightly to see if I can find my own personal sweet spot...is this what you are saying in essence?


Kind of yes, experimentation is what its all about... but right at the start use the clinical data for all its worth to guide it and not just the average of one thing. There's random experimentation and smart experimentation.

To be smart, right from the beginning look at a range of studies that look at a wide range of factors - using the low vs high carb example, looking at a wide body of data and patterns within it, three trends that seem to be pretty strong for successful high carbers (high responders to carb diets, low responders to low carb diets) are:

1) very active in their non exercise time

2) with good insulin sensitivity

3) are of low body fat

So if you can see clearly that one or more those trends are you, then a best guess will likely be not just to pick low carb because it has the best average but to go high carb. If you have all three things then you may want to go pretty high carb, if just one then moderate but not low carb to start with.

If however you share the following trends typical to low carb high responders (note the last two contradict, but that just shows its a complex thing with more than one pattern/group of people who respond similarly overall for different reasons) then start at low carb:

1) sedentary in non exercise time or do no exercise at all

2) with poor insulin sensitivity (get fluctuating moods, water levels and energy levels after carby meals)

3) hate eating fruit, veg and carb foods (low diet compliance to high carb diets)

4) find carbs so delicious you have serious will power issues when eating them

Often, if you start right away looking at things wider than you might initially expect to be relevant, there is far less need to experiment and a lot more likelihood of getting it right straight away - and without even playing around you might well successfully deduce that your own best response is nowhere near the average (for most people it will be near the average, but possibly not you). You probably will still have to tweak things a bit, but not nearly so much as only looking at one factor and ignoring the whole pattern of data at the beginning.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

dtlv said:


> People often mis-read science IMO.
> 
> The main thing that makes me shake my head is how most people use studies to 'prove points', especially on forums and by bloggers who always have a particular angle. Taking a single study and quoting its result as proof of something, or applying it to self immediately, is not how to use clinical data and is not what studies are for. The best way to use clinical trials in research is not to take single trials with eye catching results but all the studies you can possibly find on a topic and pool the information and to look for trends, patterns within the trends, and nul effects. Very important too is not to just look at the average, but to also look at the variety of different individual responses that make up the average.


Couldn't agree more. I'm a subscriber to Alan Aragon's Research Review, and he will often critique studies that appear to make big claims, but have a flaw in the methodology, or some issue with relevance to bodybuilders.

The point I'm making is not that a particular study showed that low carb dieting is the same as high carb, but that no study has yet managed to show that one is superior to the other, despite some of them being over quite long timescales. These studies do however all suggest that some people do better on one style of eating than the other.

Therefore, the intelligent position is not to ignore the science and just go for whatever voodoo takes our fancy, but assume that we are 'average', see how we respond to that, then tweak it either side of average to see how we respond.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

banzi said:


> No I prefer trial and error on my part.
> 
> Example
> 
> ...


Science does not say that isn't possible. This is the attitude that gets people denying evolution or believing in anti-vaccine bo11ocks.

The standard deviation on BMR is around 7-8%. This means that 2/3 of people have a BMR more than 7-8% different (either higher or lower) than the standard formulae would predict, and one in 20 are more than 14-16% different.

Science doesn't say your maintenance cals are not possible - science quantifies how far from the average you are. I'm the other way - same sort of height & weight but around 15% bf. My maintenance is closer to 3,800.


----------



## JuggernautJake (Nov 6, 2013)

Major Eyeswater said:



> Science does not say that isn't possible. This is the attitude that gets people denying evolution or believing in anti-vaccine bo11ocks.
> 
> The standard deviation on BMR is around 7-8%. This means that 2/3 of people have a BMR more than 7-8% different (either higher or lower) than the standard formulae would predict, and one in 20 are more than 14-16% different.
> 
> Science doesn't say your maintenance cals are not possible - science quantifies how far from the average you are. I'm the other way - same sort of height & weight but around 15% bf. My maintenance is closer to 3,800.


How can evolution be true if the world is 4000 years old :tongue: ... but yeah you obviously shouldn't reject science completely but do as @dtlv says and "smartly" experiment by analysing data and trends etc which would give you a good place to start trial and error


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

JuggernautJake said:


> How can evolution be true if the world is 4000 years old :tongue:


Don't f'cking start..



> ... but yeah you obviously shouldn't reject science completely but do as @dtlv says and "smartly" experiment by analysing data and trends etc which would give you a good place to start trial and error


Absolutely. I was a bodybuilder in the 80's & early 90's, and followed the orthodoxy of the day with a very high carb diet - routinely tucking away 600-800g of carbs a day & keeping my fats as low as possible. I responded well to this, but it was a bit grim & a bit of a chore to follow.

When I returned to the sport about 4 years ago, high carbs had fallen out of favour & fats were no longer poisonous, so I started with a 'zone' type diet (roughly equal cals from fat & protein). This was much more pleasant to follow than the high carb, and I seemed to cope with this well. I tried low carbs but could not get on with it at all. Then I bumped my carbs up & found a sweet spot with carbs & fats around a 3:2 ratio.


----------



## aad123 (Dec 7, 2011)

I have to say this is one of the most interesting threads I have read in a while. My wife recently completed a post grad diploma and part of her study involved a lot of Meta-analysis which is what I think you guys are discussing. I thing that companies use studies to try and sell more products and select only the data relevant to their product in their marketing. As my old lecturer would say there are Lies, damned lies, and statistics.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Couldn't agree more. I'm a subscriber to Alan Aragon's Research Review, and he will often critique studies that appear to make big claims, but have a flaw in the methodology, or some issue with relevance to bodybuilders.
> 
> The point I'm making is not that a particular study showed that low carb dieting is the same as high carb, but that no study has yet managed to show that one is superior to the other, despite some of them being over quite long timescales. These studies do however all suggest that some people do better on one style of eating than the other.
> 
> Therefore, the intelligent position is not to ignore the science and just go for whatever voodoo takes our fancy, but assume that we are 'average', see how we respond to that, then tweak it either side of average to see how we respond.


The AARR is awesome. If you are interested (also for a small subscription fee) a quality site that complies and summarizes all the up to date research as it's published is this one - http://www.strengthandconditioningresearch.com/subscribe-today/ . That, combined with AARR and a few other sites/pages/groups, is a great way to keep up to date with things and also focused on examining them critically.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

aad123 said:


> I thing that companies use studies to try and sell more products and select only the data relevant to their product in their marketing.


This is probably where guys like Banzai & others have developed a distaste for scientific studies - because they are frequently misused by supplement companies to flog their latest line of snake-oil.

I've read loads of stuff about how fructose makes you fat, because it's preferentially turned into fat in the liver, and there are loads of scientific studies to back this up. Well - yes there are, but a lot of those studies are done with rats, and rats metabolise fructose differently to primates - who have spent tens of millions of years eating fruit.

Another thing that adds to the distrust is the constantly changing messages. When I first got into the sport in the early 80's, dietary fat was something that had to be cut down to an absolute minimum, and saturated fat was deadly. Nowadays, clued up nutritionists are saying that dietary fat is fine & high carbs are great for professional athletes but not ideal for bodybuilders, whilst the 'scientific establishment' doesn't seem to have caught up yet. Combine this with the different sides of the argument all cherry-picking studies that back up their opinion, and it's not surprising that you get people ignoring the whole lot & going with what they feel is working for them.

Nutrition is a young science, and it's bloody complicated, so it hasn't all been figured out yet. There is also the fact that the human body tends to adapt to whatever diet it's currently getting, so how an individual responds to a novel diet in week 1 will be different to how they will be responding in week 51.

This is why I think it's vital to keep clued up, and keep looking at the bigger picture.


----------



## aad123 (Dec 7, 2011)

Just spent most of the evening reading "Alan Aragon's Research Review" on pre-contest nutrition. I'm not getting ready to compete but as I'm currently cutting it seemed related. A very interesting read.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

aad123 said:


> Just spent most of the evening reading "Alan Aragon's Research Review" on pre-contest nutrition. I'm not getting ready to compete but as I'm currently cutting it seemed related. A very interesting read.


That's a good research article. Both the main authors, Aragon and Eric Helms, are worth following for quality info.


----------



## aad123 (Dec 7, 2011)

@dtlv I like your new avi it's "a lot more better" than the last one.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

aad123 said:


> @dtlv I like your new avi it's "a lot more better" than the last one.


Yeah is probably a betterer avi for here, lol. The aligator in my previous avi was a ten footer I almost walked right into when coming around a corner on my last trip out to the states - was pretty crazy!


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

JuggernautJake said:


> I have to admit, this is an attitude I am gradually moving more and more towards. Coming from an exercise science background, I do like research and evidence but I agree with the fact that we are so bio diverse everything is unique...time and time again i've been told if I do this, this will happen to me and it doesn't...calories in vs calories out DOES not work for me on its own for cutting, its just too basic on its own...the macros are much more important low carb, high pro, high fat then a calorie spike to refresh....BUT I still have to adhere to the laws of thermodynamics by consuming less calories then I burn.


so calories in and calories out does work for you if you have to eat less than you burn to lose weight....

calories in and calories out does matter of course it does, to think it does not is just plain stupid, even if you base your diet around Macro's as i do you still have to adhere to calories in and calories out.....

to dismiss studies as irrelevant is again stupid (general comment not aimed at one person) i am a huge believer in anecdotal evidence and have based a lot of my knowledge on this and to be fair i have been pretty accurate, the issue with studies is not the study but with the individual reading the study, as many on the forums just read the conclusion and not the whole study.

for example there is definitive evidence to show that there is no gain in eating 6 meals a day when we look at body composition and this is backed up by many studies yet when you look at some of those studies you will see there is evidence to show that when you look at digestion, protein turnover there is a definite benefit, but this is not said only the Bro science about a metabolic boost from eating multiple meals.

everyone is individual this is correct but we all release insulin, we all need Protein turnover etc to think science has no part to play in the decisions you should make to progress to a decent level in the sport is foolish at best.

but on the flip side of that coin for you science buffs to believe that anecdotal evidence is to be dismissed because there is no study to back it up will hold you back in the same way......

the only way to learn and progress is to research a subject and use trial and error to find what is best for you as an individual.


----------



## JuggernautJake (Nov 6, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> so calories in and calories out does work for you if you have to eat less than you burn to lose weight....
> 
> calories in and calories out does matter of course it does, to think it does not is just plain stupid, even if you base your diet around Macro's as i do you still have to adhere to calories in and calories out.....
> 
> ...


Not one point did I say it does not work...infact I said that opposite, I have to abide by the laws of calories in vs calories out whether I like it or not, but I find this goal easier to achieve low carb (for multiple reasons that are specific to me)...I stand by the fact that it does not work on its own with no consideration to macros, imagine if I ate a deficit but all carbs, my physique would go to ****. I consider the macros to be more important but you must still be in a deficit no matter what you eat.

.

But I agree with the rest of what you said, use research to find a starting point, for example the subject of protein intake (a generic number being 1g per lb from studies), then play around with that number using trial and error and see what works for you...I apply the same principle to training


----------



## themav (Oct 7, 2010)

@Pscarb - I can't pm but i sent an email to you late last night, just making sure your icloud account is still active? Thanks Gregg


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

JuggernautJake said:


> Not one point did I say it does not work...infact I said that opposite, I have to abide by the laws of calories in vs calories out whether I like it or not, but I find this goal easier to achieve low carb (for multiple reasons that are specific to me)...I stand by the fact that it does not work on its own with no consideration to macros, imagine if I ate a deficit but all carbs, my physique would go to ****. I consider the macros to be more important but you must still be in a deficit no matter what you eat.
> 
> .
> 
> But I agree with the rest of what you said, use research to find a starting point, for example the subject of protein intake (a generic number being 1g per lb from studies), then play around with that number using trial and error and see what works for you...I apply the same principle to training


my bad i read it slightly wrong, yes i agree those who need to lose large amounts of weight calories in Vs calories out is not affective long term (i am assuming IIFYM style)...my apologies.



themav said:


> @Pscarb - I can't pm but i sent an email to you late last night, just making sure your icloud account is still active? Thanks Gregg


yes i have received an email but not got round to reading them yet buddy.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

The way I see the relationship between 'kcals in vs kcals out' and macros is this - energy balance determines the direction the body is going in (net increase in storage of energy or net reduction), but macro manipulation can alter three things - firstly it can slightly alter the proportions of where stored energy in the body is lost from in a deficit or added to in a gaining phase (fat, muscle, glycogen etc), secondly it can make a prolonged deficit or an excess harder or easier to achieve and stick to depending upon an individuals unique relationship with specific foods and macros, and thirdly it can to a point increase or decrease the amount of spontaneous non exercise activity a person does.

Thus the right macros on a cut for a particular person alters their behaviour and sense of wellbeing to make them feel less sh1tty, more energised and active, less hungry, more likely to burn more extra kcals without thinking about it, more likely to retain as much lean mass as possible and burn as much fat (within limits of the kcal restriction) and more likely to stick with a diet plan - the wrong macros however can make a person feel tired, ravenously hungry, and like they are fighting a constant battle and are looking to want to quit/cheat at every opportunity. It will also make it slightly more catabolic to muscle than fat compared to someone on the right macros for them in their situation. The actual metabolic effects of macros, other than differences in TEF/DIT, are largely overhyped and in most cases not significant though - most of the positive effect I think comes indirectly via behavioural changes that come from being on he right or wrong macros for the individual. We definitely aren't all the same in what is right, and even for the same person what is optimum in one condition might not always be optimum in all conditions.


----------



## Growing Lad (Feb 14, 2009)

In order of importance:

-Calories (must have a deficit)

-macros (enough protein, essential fats and fibre)

-micros (fruit and veg for health)

- meal timing/frequency (something that suits your lifestyle)


----------



## jackedjackass (Nov 16, 2014)

Kid Billy said:


> Been on low carb diet for a while now and to be honest it's starting to do my head in, even with a refeed day per week.
> 
> I'm now thinking of going back to a diet with carbs but worried about a couple of things:
> 
> ...


The body will use fat for energy when its depleted of carbs.

But of course you can still lose fat on a diet with carbs.

Calories is what matters very first.


----------



## jackedjackass (Nov 16, 2014)

Growing Lad said:


> In order of importance:
> 
> -Calories (must have a deficit)
> 
> ...


This is what i was trying to say:cool2: :beer:


----------



## Beulah (Dec 8, 2014)

It's traditional to loose weight quickly. It's as a result of you are loosing water weight and polios. It doesn't mean you've got born 8lbs of fat.

If you were to drink a load of water, salt, and sugar, you'd place that weight back on virtually instantly.

You should be reaching ketonemia quite shortly. the simplest thanks to speed this up is to exercise for 1-2 hours while fasted.


----------

