# Low carb vs. moderate carb



## AussieMarc (Jun 13, 2004)

Just thought I would move the debate in here instead of hijacking the poor soul's thread in the Getting Started section I believe it was.

Lets kick it off shall we?

My beliefs is that you do indeed need an average amount of carbs in your diet, not only to keep your glycogen at a high but also to include important fibre, minerals, and vitamins found in fruits and vegies. A lack of fibre in your diet can actually cause constipation. There was an extreme case where an instructor from my course is actually a doctor. He had a patient that was so constipated from the lack of fibre in his diet for a whole 2 or 3 weeks. He ended up having a peice of squishy brown stuff come out of his mouth because it was so clogged up. He ended up spewing it out as your body would to get it out whatever way possible. High fibreous foods encourage bowel movement and I would encourage that as much as possible..

Now on another issue entirely - losing weight. Low carb (aka Atkins etc) diets have the idea that you depleat your body of glycogen (an important energy source) to start using another source of energy - Fat. Yes this is true, but if you deplete your body of carbs you will not have the most sufficient energy source in your body, yes the adherementioned - glycogen.

IMO  << Smiley says its alright!


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

I thought we had a diet section?



AussieMarc said:


> A lack of fibre in your diet can actually cause constipation.


Really who would have thought that? I thought it just turned your **** a funny colour 

I dont really get this thread?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Who decides what is considered Moderate or Low when it comes to carbs?

To say that you HAVE to eat a moderate amount of carbs is wrong!!

We are all different and what works for one does not work for others..take me for example i diet using Low carb days of 0g and these make up most of the week because i know my body and know that by replacing Cals lost from Carbs with Cals from Essential Fats i feel fine and because i use Fibre supps and eat alot of Veg then constipation is not a problem..

i know of some bodybuilders who eat 3x as much carbs as i do on the low day and suffer more does that mean they eat Moderate or Low carbs?

now i do agree with the fact that the Atkins diet is no good for long term health but do work for fat loss..


----------



## AussieMarc (Jun 13, 2004)

jamiedsmith1981 said:


> I thought we had a diet section?
> 
> I dont really get this thread?


It is preventing the hijack of a thread in the getting started section. Just tried to move it here and shoot it off with a sort of opening argument


----------



## AussieMarc (Jun 13, 2004)

Pscarb said:


> Who decides what is considered Moderate or Low when it comes to carbs?
> 
> To say that you HAVE to eat a moderate amount of carbs is wrong!!
> 
> ...


As said in my last post mate.. This is just moving the argument to this thread rather then a hijack.. Sorry I wasn't exactly clear on what i meant - For the average joe who is trying to lose weight, a low carb diet is / is not the best idea. It's in reference to the other thread mate...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i understand why you have started the thread mate and i am pleased you have...

but still even from a average Joe piont of veiw who decides what is Low and what is a Moderate amount of carbs?? this is a question to all...


----------



## AussieMarc (Jun 13, 2004)

Sorry for the misunderstanding.. Moderate - a fairly balanced diet with equal carbs as there are protein and fats. Low - a low carb diet (like atkins or equivilent) where there is a considerable low amount of carbs in the diet.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

yes but as i have said before what works for one does not work for others....

Their are 2 guys both are 200lbs both train at a gym 4 times per week.

Man A has a high metabolism and can maintain his current weight by eating 3500cals per day most of this being made up from Carbs

200g Protein

500g Carbs

the rest from fats

Man B has a slower metabolism and to maintain his body weight he need only 2200cals

200g protein

200g Carbs

70g Fats

so these two guys are the same weight but what Man B calls high carbs ManA considers it moderate..

where as what ManB considers moderate ManA considers low.....

so my point is no one can say that Low carb diets don't work for the average Joe because no one can determine what is Low carb....


----------



## Magic Torch (May 30, 2005)

AussieMarc said:


> As said in my last post mate.. This is just moving the argument to this thread rather then a hijack.. Sorry I wasn't exactly clear on what i meant - For the average joe who is trying to lose weight, a low carb diet is / is not the best idea. It's in reference to the other thread mate...


Ok cool I just found it in the general section and I was a bit lost!

Though my thought would be that a low carb diet could benifit weight lose, but this would only be a temp change. The term diet is used wrong IMO, as people 'go on a diet' to lose weight for the summer hols or a wedding, but then after the weight is lost they will revert back to eating a high carb diet, and gain the weight back. For me my diet is the way I eat not what I eat and I belive ppl who 'deit' for weight lose should be educated to eat healthy rather than fad diets that they wont use long term. I vary my diet between bulking and cutting but my carb levels stay high as I have a high meta rate so I need my carbs to keep my energy up, but my protien levels change.

It is all dependant on the person.


----------



## crazycacti (Jun 20, 2004)

I'm 225 lbs atm and cutting...

I'm eating around 2000 - 2100 cals a day and only loosing between 1lb to 1 1/2 lbs per week - averaging about 1 lb

I'd say thats a pretty low metabolism...

I wouldn't like to go any lower than 250g protein when dieting - and i'd like really to keep it up to 300g

300g protein = 1200 cals

i only have 900 left and i feel that low fat isn't too good for you so lets say i eat 60g fat

60g fat = 540 cals

I've got 360 cals left to come from carbs... which is only 90g

some people might also say 90g carbs with 60g fat isn't too good and the fat ratio should be higher because your carbs are pretty low...

i normally hit 50g of carbs a day atm with 250-300g protein and the reast of the cals in good fats and feel fine on it - 2 twice a week i'll have a high carb day with one being very high carb and low fat to reset myself

IMO my carbs look low because my cals are too low to have a high/moderate carb diet - just like Paul says in a previous post - people who have to eat more can afford more carbs


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Basic stuff taken from Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle

1 g carbs = 4 kcals

1 g protein = 4 kcals

1 g fat = 9 kcals

After sorting out your daily intake, you have to work out the percentage of each of the macronutrients

So for carbohydrates:

Very High carbs = 65-7-% +

High carbs = 55-60 %

Moderate carbs = 40-50 %

Low carbs = 25-30%

Very low carb (ketogenic) = 5-15 % or 30- 70 grams carbs per day


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tatyana said:


> Basic stuff taken from Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle
> 
> 1 g carbs = 4 kcals
> 
> ...


This would only suit only a few people thoughb ecause i would consider 40-50% carbs very high and 25-30% moderate.

So like i keep saying there is no one rule that fits all the best rule that applies is to start with something like above then adjust accordingly and be flexable.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

I think that most people will lose fat by adding regular exercise (resistance AND cardio) to their routine and by 'cleaning up' their diets. A 'clean' diet means that you've mastered all the nutritional basics like eating small frequent meals, controlling portion sizes, cutting down on saturated fats, avoiding sugar, drinking plenty of water and eating lean protein at every meal.

Moderate carbohydrate restriction will usually speed up fat loss, but a very low carbohydrate diet is not the ultimate answer to permanent fat loss. At it's worst it is unhealthy and causes muscle loss. At best it is a temporary tool that should only be used for short periods for specific fat loss goals (such as preparing for a bodybuilding comp).

The flaw in the very low carbohydrate approach is the assumption that EVERYONE is carbohydrate sensitive. Research has estimated that only 30-30% of the population is carbohydrate sensitive and only a fraction of this 20=30 % is SERIOUSLY carbohydrate sensitive.

The best way to look at a very low carbohydrate/moderate to high fat/high protein diet is as THE LAST RESORT for those with EXTREME difficulty losing fat the conventional way.

'The bodybuilder's diet' is usually a high carbohydrate. low fat moderate protein (ratio 60-30-10). However, I have found that if losing fat and achieving it in a healthy way, WITHOUT losing muscle or energy, then a diet of 50-55% carbohydrates, 30% protein and 15-20% fat is a good starting point.

I find that my ratios are often more 30-40 % carbs, 40-60 % protein, and less than 20 % fat. I am still experimenting at what works best for me, I think I have cut out too many whole grains, and my carbs have been mainly veg (including potatoes).


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

40/30/30 carbs/fats/proteins is the best in my opinion.

Evedence also proves this.

Have a book right in front of me and I have dieted this way myself.

That is righ 40% carbs and 30% fats work very well for controlling insulin.

You can lose all the weight you want without cardio.

You can have a high carb diet and have it calorie restricted and still not lose fat.

Why?

Because you wont control the storage hormone insulin.

Do you have to do cardio to lose weight?

Nope.

What about the fat guy 100 plus pounds overweight. Is cardio the answer? Nope.

This can result in injury.

Why is it that morbidly obese people are put on a low carb diet to lose weight as fast as possible for surgery?

Agin to lose the fat as fast as possible.

When you go to a low carb diet your body uses Free Fatty Acids for fuel and ketones.

Oh wait what was that?

FFA and ketones, also your fat stores.

Only 25% of the people can take in as many carbs as they want and not spike insulin.

What does this say for the other 75% of the people?

Oh man I guess that means me.

Yah, drop the carbs, control insulin and you will be healthier, happier and less fat.

I love this subject as I have studied this for 10 years and put into practice.

Keto diets are fine for fat loss. Proven to actually lower cholesterol.

Yes this is right, lower cholesterol. It actually hammers down triglycerides too due to the loss of fat stored from carbohydrates due to the responce from insulin.

Did you know that the fat you store is worse for you than the fat you take in?

Triglycerides worse than other fat?

30% fat in your diet is totally healthy as long as you are not high carb.

You can go high carb and be healthy, you can go high fat and be healthy, you can not go high fat and high carb and be healthy.

Why?

Due to the high triglycerides.

It is not even the fat but the fat stored from the overproduction of insulin.

Low carb diets are healthy and you can have alot of vegetables too with this.

Cups of broccoli contain very little carbs and you would be totally full before you reached anywhere near moderate carbs.

Is this healthy?

Sure it is.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tatyana said:


> I think that most people will lose fat by adding regular exercise (resistance AND cardio) to their routine and by 'cleaning up' their diets. A 'clean' diet means that you've mastered all the nutritional basics like eating small frequent meals, controlling portion sizes, cutting down on saturated fats, avoiding sugar, drinking plenty of water and eating lean protein at every meal.


Yes this is very true but we are talking about Low or Moderate carb intake not a general diet....



Tatyana said:


> Moderate carbohydrate restriction will usually speed up fat loss, but a very low carbohydrate diet is not the ultimate answer to permanent fat loss. At it's worst it is unhealthy and causes muscle loss. At best it is a temporary tool that should only be used for short periods for specific fat loss goals (such as preparing for a bodybuilding comp).


Why would you experience muscle loss when you lower Carbs? if you raise both protein and good fats you will not lose muscle this applies to the average trainer not just competitive bodybuilders.

if you are losing muscle when using low carbs or carb cycling then you have not thought about the protein and fats side of your diet.



Tatyana said:


> The flaw in the very low carbohydrate approach is the assumption that EVERYONE is carbohydrate sensitive. Research has estimated that only 30-30% of the population is carbohydrate sensitive and only a fraction of this 20=30 % is SERIOUSLY carbohydrate sensitive.


As i have said before what is considered for one as low is considered to another as moderate or even high...and the flaw with what you have said above is that you assume HARDLY ANYONE is carb sensitive just because you can eat carbs does not mean everyone can.



Tatyana said:


> The best way to look at a very low carbohydrate/moderate to high fat/high protein diet is as THE LAST RESORT for those with EXTREME difficulty losing fat the conventional way.


Please tell me why this is the last resort i know plenty of people from bodybuilders to housewifes that use a low carb or carb cycling philosophy year round with great results most of these people find that they feel great and more healthy when they lower their carbs.



Tatyana said:


> 'The bodybuilder's diet' is usually a high carbohydrate. low fat moderate protein (ratio 60-30-10). However, I have found that if losing fat and achieving it in a healthy way, WITHOUT losing muscle or energy, then a diet of 50-55% carbohydrates, 30% protein and 15-20% fat is a good starting point.


exactly this is what you have found works for you!!! not everyone else...

i know alot of bodybuilders that diet and a vast % of them never have dieted using high carbs...

if you diet with only 30% protein i can now understand why you keep mentioning muscle loss.



Tatyana said:


> I find that my ratios are often more 30-40 % carbs, 40-60 % protein, and less than 20 % fat. I am still experimenting at what works best for me, I think I have cut out too many whole grains, and my carbs have been mainly veg (including potatoes).


so if you are still experimenting how do you know that low carb cycling does not fit..??

Tatyana i am not making a dig at you but you have posted up pretty much what most diet books say and that is that their is one way only to diet healthy?

Like i have said before their is no one way for everyone the best way for anyone to approach dieting\eating plans is with an open mind...


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

AussieMarc said:


> if you deplete your body of carbs you will not have the most sufficient energy source in your body, yes the adherementioned - glycogen.


The most efficient fuel in the body is not carbohydrates the most efficient source of fuel in the body is fat. It is a slower more efficient source of fuel.

Sufficient fuel?

Again this is fat.

Lets look at it like this way. You can store 400 grams of carbs in the muscle and 70 grams in the liver. That is 470 total carbs and that equates to just 1880 calories. Just one lb of fat equals 3500 calories almost double the stored carbohydrates.

Most people have enough fat to run over 20 marathons.



Tatyana said:


> At it's worst it is unhealthy and causes muscle loss. At best it is a temporary tool that should only be used for short periods for specific fat loss goals


Atkins was a cardiologist and ran the numbers and found cholesterol levels dropped.

Very little muscle loss at all in fact I have articles which were clinical and show the opposite is true. Let's just use the Eskimos as just one example of how false that above statement is.

Eskimos are very low carb and have zero problems in fact have lower cardio vascular problems, less depression and no cavities in their teeth.

This is just your opinion based on no proof other than what you believe, which is wrong by the way.



Tatyana said:


> The flaw in the very low carbohydrate approach is the assumption that EVERYONE is carbohydrate sensitive. Research has estimated that only 30-30% of the population is carbohydrate sensitive and only a fraction of this 20=30 % is SERIOUSLY carbohydrate sensitive.


25% of people can eat carbs with not problems with insulin.

The other 75% of the people are sensitive to carbs at different levels.

25% of the United States is very sensitive.

Most people are insulin resistant.

Do some more research or your numbers are backwards.



Tatyana said:


> The best way to look at a very low carbohydrate/moderate to high fat/high protein diet is as THE LAST RESORT for those with EXTREME difficulty losing fat the conventional way.


Last resort?

Why is it so effective and safe?

Again there is no eveidence to support that it is unhealthy.

Look at the Paleolthic Diet and tell me that these people were not in fact healthier than we were now.

Again your argument is based on your opinion and not fact related in any way shape or form.



Tatyana said:


> 'The bodybuilder's diet' is usually a high carbohydrate. low fat moderate protein (ratio 60-30-10).


This diet with just 10% fat in it is unhealthy.

Low fat diets will yield low testosterone. Not my opinion but fact. Low fat diets are not good for you and just because you look good on stage does not make you healthy.

*Still think your high carb low fat diet is healthy Tatyana?*

"The low-fat high-carbohydrate diet, promulgated by the National Cholesterol Education Program, the National Institutes of Health, the American Heart Association...and the Department of Agriculture food pyramid...may well have played an unintended role in the current epidemics of obesity, lipid abnormalities, type II diabetes and metabolic syndromes. This diet can no longer be defended by appeal to the authority of prestigious medical organizations or by rejecting a growing medical literature that the much-maligned low-carbohydrate high-protein diet may have a salutary effect on the epidemics in question."

-- from the abstract of "The Diet-Health Hypothesis: A Critique" by Sylvan Lee Weinberg, MD, MACC in The Journal of the American College of Cardiologists, Vol, 33, pp. 731-33, 2004.

A diet high in carbohydrates can result in elevated levels of triglycerides and bad cholesterol, which can lead to heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and other serious problems. Very low-fat diets are associated with a rise in triglycerides and a decrease in "good" carbohydrates--a potentially deadly combination.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

In a recent copy of MD they wrote about a sudy where male Test levels where recorded when on a low fat diet.

the conclusion was that those who severly restricted saturated fats had low Test scores...

this way of thinking is going back to the old days when Fat was a bad word i believe their is plenty of scientific evidence out there to prove that diets containing moderate-high fats and moderate to low carbs are indeed healthy...


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

http://www.welikeyoursite.com/low-carb-stupidity-tom-venuto.html

Found this link on low carb stupidity-low carb intelligence, thought it might be an interesting addition to this debate


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

*Low carb intelligence*

*
*

*
Knowing that fat loss always did and always will boil down to calories in vs. calories out.*

The above statement is actually not correct.

Those people that are sensitive to carbs and are insulin resistant this is a false statement.

If a person on high carb diet was insulin resistant and ate like this not knowing not only would it be dangerous to eat this way but that person would get fatter due to storage of fat from the very food he or she ate.

Not only that but end up type 2 diabetic in the process.

*Low carb intelligence*

*
*

*
Knowing that dieting is the worst way to lose fat and that exercise is the best way to lose fat (Burn The Fat, dont starve the fat). *

Again this is seriously flawed statement.

It is opposite.

What about the people that cant exercise due to being too heavy?

Put a bullet in the head due to no hope?

This is bullcrap and the dude that wrote this has no knowledge of diets and the responce food has on the body.

Not only that but using that logic for only exercise the person would have to modify the diet when he or she lost the weight and came off the exercise program.

Not only that but I can prove this dude is wrong by myself losing bodyfat without cardio, granted I do lift weights.

Controlling insulin and using ketones and FFA's do in fact burn bodyfat and use fat stores for fuel. At a tune of several pounds a week.

Using the above logic burning 3 lbs of cardio would take 7 days of 2 hours a day cardio with some decent intensity.

I bet to some an injury would occur to get the same benefit if that was even possible.

What if you didnt lose as fast as you wanted up the exercise more?

What if you didnt have the time like most people dont?

Oh then you will be fat forever.

That is a false statement and I would love to debate this dude in person.

Like his abs in his pick mean anything.

Its all marketing, probably selling a book too.

Oops he sure is......haaaa haaaa

Crediblilty just went out the window on that one

Every competitive bodybuilder I know drops carbs and they do this for a reason.

They all exercise but when dieting they ALL drop the carbs.:crazy:

For the record, just look at the Eskimos and tell me that low carb diets are unhealthy.

If you say that Eskimos are unhealthy due to their low carb diets whom ever says this has no knowledge of food and the effects of food on the body.

Want to do a good little read on diets?

Read about the Paleolithic diet and see for yourself that there are foods that should not be eaten.

Using this article to validate your point is like using your diploma to validate your intelligence.

This guy is uninformed to make judgments on what is write and wrong in dieting.

Nice try but keto diets do work and do work without exercise and work well for the couch potato.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Are Low Carb Diets The Best Way To Lose Body Fat

*by Tom Venuto*

www.burnthefat.com

















*Tom Venuto*

www.burnthefat.com
​

These days, the carbohydrate issue seems to be the burning question on the minds of nearly everyone who is interested in getting leaner. Not a single week goes by that I don't receive an e-mail with a question about the low carb/high protein diet. Last week I got this one:

It's no wonder why there's such a buzz about these diets: everywhere you look lately there are low carb bars, low carb drinks, low carb meal replacements, low carb frozen dinners and so on. In the bookstores, The Atkins diet, Protein Power and Sugar-Busters have all been best sellers.

Even though there has been a huge resurgence in the interest in low carb/high protein diets, the low carb vs. high carb issue is still the subject of much controversy. For every "low carb guru" who says that low carbs are the ultimate diet, there is a "high carb guru" with the opposite opinion. This has caused a lot of people a lot of confusion.

So what's the deal? Is the low carb/high protein diet the best way for bodybuilders to get ripped or just another fad? From a bodybuilding standpoint, the answer is an unequivocal yes; reducing carbohydrates really works! Most bodybuilders can't get that "ripped" look without some degree of carb restriction. Almost every bodybuilder or fitness competitor I've ever met uses some version of the low carb diet when getting ready for competition. The problem is, most people fail to take into account their goals and their unique body type, so they follow the advice of the latest "low-carb guru" and take the carb restriction too far. Zero carb or close to zero carb diets are in my opinion, TOTAL INSANITY!

The other extreme; the high carb, very low fat diet, isn't the best approach for bodybuilders either. These diets (60-70% carb, 20-30% protein and 10% or less fat) were trendy with bodybuilders for a while, especially back in the 80's and early 90's (Remember Nathan Pritkin, Dean Ornish and Robert Haas?), but their popularity quickly faded. Those who tried it discovered that it wasn't nearly as effective as the low to moderate carb, high protein diet.

Why does dropping your carbs help you lose more fat? There are several reasons, but to avoid getting into a complicated discussion of nutritional biochemistry, let's just say that eating less carbs forces your body to burn fat for fuel instead of sugar. Reducing carbs and increasing protein accelerates fat loss by controlling your insulin and blood sugar more effectively. The high protein in these diets also speeds up your metabolism because of the "thermic effect" of protein food. It also helps eliminate water retention, giving you the "hard" and "dry" look you need onstage to win contests.

In my opinion, a moderate carb diet, with slight carb restriction (especially at night) is the most effective (and most "sane") way for bodybuilders to get ripped. For example, my contest diet is about 175 -200 grams of carbs with most of the carbs eaten early in the day. Every 4th day, I have a high carb day (350 grams) to replenish my depleted glycogen stores. By contrast, my off-season diet is 350 - 450 grams of carbs. With 175 - 200 grams of carbs, that is just enough fuel to provide the energy I needed to train hard and to prevent me from losing muscle.

Would dropping carbs even further to 30 or 50 grams a day (like many fad diets recommend) get you more ripped or get you ripped faster? Maybe. But the problem is, without carbs, you'll have no energy to train hard. Sure, tuna fish and water will get you ripped alright, but if your workouts suffer because your diet is "killing you," you aren't going to look or feel your best.

Another big problem caused by very low carb diets is loss of lean body mass. The lower you drop your carbs, the more likely you are to lose muscle along with the fat.

A third problem with very low carb diets is the rebound effect. The lower you drop your carbs, the faster you will rebound and gain the fat back when you add the carbs back in. I swear I've seen guys blow up 30-40 lbs in a matter of DAYS after their contest because they went on a carbohydrate and fat binge after a four-month zero carb diet. It wasn't a pretty sight!

When I experimented with a very low carb diet, (about 40-70 grams a day), I lost huge amounts of lean body mass and looked very "flat" and "stringy." I was also one irritable, grouchy SOB. My friends nicknamed me "fog boy" because (sez them) I stumbled around in a fog-like daze. One friend who hadn't seen me since the previous year when I was a "bulked up" and carbed up 208 lbs, saw me 48 lbs lighter after the low carb diet (yes, 160 scrawny pounds) and he said, "holy sh** Tom, what happened to you? You're HALF the man you were last year!" That was the last time I ever tried an extremely low carb diet.

Nutrition is a highly individual issue. Some people can't seem to lose weight unless they reduce their carbohydrate intake. Other people can eat bagels and pasta all day long and they have six pack abs. How many carbs you eat therefore, depends on your body type. Are you an endormorph or an ectomorph? Do you have a fast metabolism or a slow metabolism? Are you naturally lean or naturally heavy? Depending on your genetics, you might thrive on high carbs or you might need a high protein, low carb diet to get results. But beware: even if you think you are the carb sensitive, slow-metabolism type, the middle path (moderate carb restiction) is the most sensible way to go.

The only way to determine how many grams of carbs is right for YOU is to experiment until you find your "critical level." If you start dropping body fat rapidly at 200 grams a day, then why on earth would you subject yourself to the torture of going even lower and doing one of those 30-40 grams a day "ketogenic" diets? Why kill yourself?

Remember, there is no single diet that works for everyone. There are certain universal nutritional laws that apply to everyone, but be very careful of "gurus" who use the words "always" and "never" or who make sweeping statements like "carbohydrates make you fat."

If you want to get ripped, you should also pick the type of carbs you eat carefully - it's not just the quantity, it's the quality. In addition to moderating total daily carb intake, I also recommend getting off ALL processed carbs including bread, crackers, pretzels, pasta, bagels and switching only to natural, unprocessed carbs like vegetables, oatmeal, yams, rice, potatoes, etc. That single change will go a long way in helping you get leaner (and healthier too!)

The bottom line is that it's not correct to say, "carbs are fattening," but there IS some truth to the assertion that a low carb diet will get you leaner compared to a high carb diet - you just have to approach it in a sensible and individualized way. As in most areas of your life, going to the extreme with your diet will usually do you more harm than good.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Ok the full article!

There is an epidemic of "low carb stupidity" running rampant among millions of people throughout the world today - and fast food restaurants, food product manufacturers, supplement companies, and weight loss programs are capitalizing on it in a big way in 2004!

The low carb diet is not inherently stupid, however. It can be quite beneficial within certain parameters and under the right circumstances. The problem is that many practitioners are uninformed, misinformed, or simply lack the common sense and intuitive bodily wisdom to utilize the low carb approach intelligently.

Many low-carbers don't even know why they are on a low carb diet, they're just following the followers (Not intelligent!) Doing what everyone else is doing is always one of the surest, straightest routes to arrive at mediocrity! If you want to be a success, your chances are far greater if you look at what the masses are doing and do the exact opposite!

Fortunately, there is such a thing as "low carb intelligence." Hopefully, by reading my brief rant this month, you will increase your carb IQ, and soon join the ranks of the extraordinarily fit, lean and healthy "carbo geniuses!"

*Low carb stupidity #1*

Selecting your beer or liquor carefully to make sure you have the brand with the fewest grams of carbs.

*Low carb intelligence*

Avoiding alcohol if you're trying to lose body fat. Drinking only in moderation if you're trying to maintain your weight and be healthy.

*Low carb stupidity #2*

Believing any of the following: Low carbs diets are the only way to lose fat, low carb diets are the best way to lose fat, no one should ever eat a high carb diet, high carbs always make you fat, starches and grains make everyone sick and unhealthy.

*Low carb intelligence *

Adjusting your approach according to your health status, your goals and your body type, not according to generalizations preached by dogmatic diet "gurus."

*Low carb stupidity #3*

Going on the Atkins diet (or any other very low carb/ketogenic diet) with absolutely no idea why you're doing it or how the diet works (going on it because "everybody" is doing it and because you see it advertised everywhere.)

*Low carb intelligence*

Studying the physiology and biochemistry of the low carb diet and completely understanding all the pros and cons. Then making an informed decision whether to restrict carbs based on your own personal goals, needs and heath status.

*Low carb stupidity #4*

Thinking that very low carb (ketogenic) dieting is a maintainable "lifestyle."

*Low carb intelligence*

Understanding that reasonable (moderate) restriction of carbs can be a helpful short term strategy for fat loss, a good way to reach a peak, a legitimate method to control appetite, and an effective way for some people to control insulin. But also understanding that a balanced diet of natural foods is probably the most suitable of all the diets for health, lifelong maintenance and weight control.

*Low carb stupidity #5*

Believing calories don't count if you just cut out your carbs (or not counting calories because it's "too much work.")

*Low carb intelligence*

Knowing that fat loss always did and always will boil down to calories in vs. calories out. Taking the time and effort to crunch your numbers (at least once), typing up your menu on a spreadsheet, keeping a diary, and/or using nutrition tracking software.

*Low carb stupidity #6*

Staying on a low carb diet that has stopped working (or never worked in the first place).

*Low carb intelligence*

Adjusting your diet according to your results; understanding that a common definition of insanity (and/or stupidity) is to continue to do the same things over and over again, while expecting a different result.

*Low carb stupidity#7*

Believing that you don't need exercise because all you need to do is cut carbs.

*Low carb intelligence*

Knowing that dieting is the worst way to lose fat and that exercise is the best way to lose fat (Burn The Fat, don't starve the fat).

*Low carb stupidity #8*

Using the argument; "There's no such thing as an essential carbohydrate" as justification for low carb dieting.

*Low carb intelligence*

Realizing that textbook definitions of "essential" can be taken out of context to promote a fad diet and that just because there's technically no "essential" carbohydrates (as there are essential amino acids and fatty acids) doesn't mean carbohydrates aren't "essential" in other respects.

*Low carb stupidity #9*

Using the argument, "You have to eat fat to lose fat" as justification for a high fat, low carb diet, without explaining it or putting it in context (exactly how much fat and what kind of fat?)

*Low carb intelligence*

Understanding the importance of essential and omega three fats (the good fats), but not taking any single nutritional principle to an extreme (such as, "If a little fat is good for you then a lot is even better.")

*Low carb stupidity #10*

Saying, "All carbs are bad" or "All carbs are fattening."

*Low carb intelligence*

Avoiding generalizations, and instead, having multiple distinctions about carbohydrates (and other foods) so you can make better choices. For example:

Low GI vs. high GI carbs

Simple vs. complex carbs

Starchy vs. fibrous carbs

Natural vs. refined carbs

High calorie density vs. low calorie density carbs

*Low carb stupidity #11*

Not clarifying your definition of low carbs.

*Low carb intelligence*

Realizing that there are "very low" carb diets, "low" carb diets, and "moderate" carb diets and that you cant lump them all together. (Some people consider The Zone Diet, at 40% of calories from carbs, a low carb diet, others consider 40% carbs quite high).

*Low carb stupidity #12*

Believing that carrots are fattening because they're high on the glycemic index and because a popular fad diet book says so.

*Low carb intelligence*

Have we lost all vestiges of common sense? With an average carrot clocking in at 31 calories and 7.3 grams of carbs, do you really think that this orange-colored, nutrient-dense, low-calorie, all-natural, straight-out-of-the-ground root vegetable is going to make you fat? (if so, you are in "carbohydrate kindergarten.")

*Low carb stupidity&#8230; Lucky #13*

Eating lots of processed and packaged low carb foods (including those protein "candy bars")&#8230; and thinking you're "being good" and "following your diet."

*Low carb intelligence*

Realizing that natural, unrefined foods are one of the keys to lifelong weight control and that anything man made and refined is NOT an ideal "diet" food - including the highly processed low carb foods that are all the rage this year. (Doesn't this bandwagon reek of the late 80's and early 90's "no fat" craze, when all those "fat free" foods were being passed off as healthy diet food, but were really highly processed and full of pure sugar?)

*--End of Stupidities--*

Forgive me for the obvious dashes of sarcasm, but sometimes I just can't help myself and I end up going into rant mode&#8230; I think the last time this happened was in my newsletter #22 almost a year ago&#8230; that was the issue where I wrote about the ad for the candy bar that increases your bench press by 50 pounds? Yeah... I heard those bars are especially effective when you combine them with low carb potato chips (weren't those low fat potato chips a few years ago??? Oh nevermind... it's all soooo confusing!)

For information on a more balanced method of fat loss which is also individualized, all-natural and maintainable for life&#8230; and which teaches you a new, safer, more moderate and more effective "twist" to the old low carb diet, visit my fat loss website at www.burnthefat.com


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Like his abs in his pick mean anything.

Its all marketing, probably selling a book too.

Oops he sure is......haaaa haaaa

Crediblilty just went out the window on that one

ANd the chap selling the Zone diet, the Atkins diet, the Paleolithic diet, or any diet book were not doing it to make money?

For the record, just look at the Eskimos and tell me that low carb diets are unhealthy.

If you say that Eskimos are unhealthy due to their low carb diets whom ever says this has no knowledge of food and the effects of food on the body.

The INNUIT people lived in an extreme environment and had to expend huge amounts of energy to survive. This hunter lifestyle is no longer applicable to today's modern lifestyle. These people have a different physiological adaptations to their environment, and today, are suffering to an even greater degree from obesity.

Using this article to validate your point is like using your diploma to validate your intelligence. What are you saying about higher education? I am not following this point.

This guy is uninformed to make judgments on what is writeright and wrong in dieting.

All research uses articles to prove points, to validate aspects of method.

What has this natural bodybuilder (therefore he does not use clenbuterol or any other pharmaceuticals) who repeatedly achieves 4% body fat uninformed about dieting? He has obviously achieved the desired result. I believe he is in his 40s as well. I will post his bio.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Tatyana said:


> So what's the deal? Is the low carb/high protein diet the best way for bodybuilders to get ripped or just another fad? From a bodybuilding standpoint, the answer is an unequivocal yes; reducing carbohydrates really works!


and



Tatyana said:


> Almost every bodybuilder or fitness competitor I've ever met uses some version of the low carb diet when getting ready for competition.


This is my point, thank you for proving my very point. I could not have done a better job convincing you than you convincing yourself.

Now you are getting the picture.

All reduce carbs to get ripped.



Tatyana said:


> For example, my contest diet is about 175 -200 grams of carbs with most of the carbs eaten early in the day. Every 4th day, I have a high carb day (350 grams) to replenish my depleted glycogen stores. By contrast, my off-season diet is 350 - 450 grams of carbs. With 175 - 200 grams of carbs, that is just enough fuel to provide the energy I needed to train hard and to prevent me from losing muscle.


See now we get to the meat of what I am trying to say. This guy is a competitive body builder. Many people using this low carb diet do not lift to the competitive levels as this guy nor has anywhere near the lean muscle mass to support his carb intake.

Even less carbs are used for someone who does not exercise or is very low in the volume or intensity or both.



Tatyana said:


> Would dropping carbs even further to 30 or 50 grams a day (like many fad diets recommend) get you more ripped or get you ripped faster? Maybe. But the problem is, without carbs, you'll have no energy to train hard. Sure, tuna fish and water will get you ripped alright, but if your workouts suffer because your diet is "killing you," you aren't going to look or feel your best.


Again even this guy admits that less grams will get you ripped. If you drop your carbs to 30 or under per day ketones and free fatty acids are used for fuel. The key here is fat, intake of fat in your diet and body fat are used for fuel.

Eating tuna fish and water is the most stupid idea I have ever heard as no fuel but protein is used for energy and you have a lot of muscle in the body for fuel and catabolism will occur. That is why a diet that is higher in fat and lower in carbs switches from glycogen and glucose to FFA and ketones.

Once the switch there is no drop in energy.

How do I know this?

I have done it, and I actually have more energy.



Tatyana said:


> When I experimented with a very low carb diet, (about 40-70 grams a day), I lost huge amounts of lean body mass and looked very "flat" and "stringy." I was also one irritable, grouchy SOB.


This guy did not go low enough in his carbs to tap into fat for fuel and the body never switched off the glucose switch. He was irritable due to low blood sugar. This does not happen in ketosis period.

Another problem he had was he lost lean tissue because he did not have enough fats. So his fuel for training was actually some glucose and muscle.

If he only added more fat (which he didnt) this would not have happened. Better yet drop the carbs even lower and upped the fat and the catabolism would have stopped.



Tatyana said:


> Nutrition is a highly individual issue. Some people can't seem to lose weight unless they reduce their carbohydrate intake. Other people can eat bagels and pasta all day long and they have six pack abs.


Exactly remember I mentioned that just about 25% of the people can eat all the carbs they want?

Well the other 75% to varying degrees just cant eat carbs and get ripped.



Tatyana said:


> but there IS some truth to the assertion that a low carb diet will get you leaner compared to a high carb diet


Exactly my point.

He even suggests not eating ALL processed carbs including bread, crackers, pretzels, pasta, and bagels.

Didn't I suggest this to you Tatyana?

Like I said, this is just what I was talking about.

The less you workout the less glucose you need.

When sitting on the couch you burn almost 100% fat.

So those that don't exercise do very well on the keto diet and there are no health consequences this has been studied and verified.

I want to thank you for proving to yourself the point I was making.

For the record fat is the most efficient fuel the body has.

Protein whether taken or used is the least efficient.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Tatyana said:


> Why does dropping your carbs help you lose more fat? There are several reasons, but to avoid getting into a complicated discussion of nutritional biochemistry, let's just say that eating less carbs forces your body to burn fat for fuel instead of sugar. Reducing carbs and increasing protein accelerates fat loss by controlling your insulin and blood sugar more effectively. The high protein in these diets also speeds up your metabolism because of the "thermic effect" of protein food. It also helps eliminate water retention, giving you the "hard" and "dry" look you need onstage to win contests.


forgot this one.

He says it all here.

Haaaa haa

This dude even ripped off John bernardi on the timing of his carbs. I have read tons of this guys info and he is very impressive.

He is a writer for T-mag.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Tatyana said:


> All research uses articles to prove points, to validate aspects of method.
> 
> What has this natural bodybuilder (therefore he does not use clenbuterol or any other pharmaceuticals) who repeatedly achieves 4% body fat uninformed about dieting? He has obviously achieved the desired result. I believe he is in his 40s as well. I will post his bio.


It is impossible to acheive 4% bodyfat because 5% of bodyfat is internal organ fat essential for survival.

Also I've seen pics of this guy on stage and no way is he close to 4%. His conditioning is not even close to some of the top amateur naturals in this country such as Rob Feesey, Dean Garrett, Ian stocks etc.

Sorry but I think his definition of ripped has a long way to go.

To be fair the guy is in top shape and what he says about a moderate carb lifestyle does make sense to me as I follow a similar intake of carb in the off season but then I'm training 5 times a week so this helps keep me lean. I don't lose bodyfat in the offseason I just stay at what I am and keep my calories just above maintenance to gain muscle.

If I want to lose weight I drop some carbs out because I want to reduce the amount of glycogen I have available for the body to use so it has to go to the fat stores sooner.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Tatyana thanks for the link but like i have said many many times this is only the opinion of one person and to be honest he has some valid points.

But he is mainly talking about Keto diets the thread is concerning Low V Moderate carb intake....

I ask once again who decided what is low and what is moderate for each individual person.

this guys says pretty much the same as me in the way that we are all diffrent and should each adjust our carb intake to suit ourselves.



Tom Ventuto said:


> Adjusting your approach according to your health status, your goals and your body type, not according to generalizations preached by dogmatic diet gurus.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

I agree with what he said too, with the exception that exercise is the best way to lose weight.

Diet is probably 80%

Again, if diet got you into the postition of being fat then why would exercise be the key to get you out of the position you are in?

If the person never exercised then the amount of exercise needed would or could result in injury.

To varying degrees everybody reduces carbs to lose weight.

It might just be easiest and fastest for the really fat people to use diet as an approach to fat loss.

When diet stalls or plateau's then you can add exercise to bust through the plateau.

Resistance training is excellant for fat burning.

I am very happy with my dieting right now and 200 grams like Tom Ventuto uses would stall my losses.

So for "me" I need to modify.

After I lose the weight for my target goal I will add carbs till I keep the weight I am looking for.

Its not rocket science.

I do have a little problem with a guy being Genetically gifted using his body as a tool to sell his book.

Like anyone will look like that after reading his book is just bull crap.

Very few people get abs like that.

Good marketing ploy though.

I was a little offended that he thinks most people that go into low carb dieting are stupid.

He could have used a few better choiced words.

Beings some of the stuff he is saying might not be actually true.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

hackskii said:


> forgot this one.
> 
> He says it all here.
> 
> ...


Using other people's work is not 'ripping it off' if you reference it! Are you suggesting re-inventing the wheel everytime someone designs a car? Also if what you told me is true and that keto diets have been around since 1860, then Atkins 'ripped it' off from someone as well, actually, I believe it was an undergraduate physiology student who 'postulated it might work.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

*Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition*

By Will Brink

When people hear the term Unified Theory, some times called the Grand Unified Theory, or even "Theory of Everything," they probably think of it in terms of physics, where a Unified Theory, or single theory capable of defining the nature of the interrelationships among nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces, would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and the universe itself, or as theoretical physicist Michio Katu, puts it "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." That's how important unified theories can be. However, unified theories don't have to deal with such heady topics as physics or the nature of the universe itself, but can be applied to far more mundane topics, in this case nutrition.

Regardless of the topic, a unified theory, as sated above, seeks to explain seemingly incompatible aspects of various theories. In this article I attempt to unify seemingly incompatible or opposing views regarding nutrition, namely, what is probably the longest running debate in the nutritional sciences: calories vs. macro nutrients.

One school, I would say the 'old school' of nutrition, maintains weight loss or weight gain is all about calories, and "a calorie is a calorie," no matter the source (e.g., carbs, fats, or proteins). They base their position on various lines of evidence to come to that conclusion.

The other school, I would call more the 'new school' of thought on the issue, would state that gaining or losing weight is really about where the calories come from (e.g., carbs, fats, and proteins), and that dictates weight loss or weight gain. Meaning, they feel, the "calorie is a calorie" mantra of the old school is wrong. They too come to this conclusion using various lines of evidence.

This has been an ongoing debate between people in the field of nutrition, biology, physiology, and many other disciplines, for decades. The result of which has led to conflicting advice and a great deal of confusion by the general public, not to mention many medical professionals and other groups.

Before I go any further, two key points that are essential to understand about any unified theory:
​


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Tatyana said:


> Using other people's work is not 'ripping it off' if you reference it! Are you suggesting re-inventing the wheel everytime someone designs a car?


Oh my bad, I didnt see his refrences here. Oh that is because they are not:eek:

John bernardi was the first guy that suggested carbs first thing in the morning and after workouts and proteins and fats at night.

He has charts and graphs in his stuff, it is very interesting.

Like I said, his info is not entirely correct and the way he markets his book it is like only he has the low down on what is up.

Much information out there is free and I cant see buying his book for fat loss especially when not totally correct in what he suggests.

No technical information and all based on his own opinions.

John bernardi on the other hand uses alot of clinical studies.

My favorite work he did is on protein and also on fat loss with fat dudes and lean dudes.

Oh and John bernardi's stuff is free too and I have not found holes in his work either.

I don't see why you are so deffensive.

Maybe it is because you posting something that was in disagreement with what you were preaching.

You said low carbs diets were a NO NO!

Can't be mad at me for that.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

​
A good unified theory is simple, concise, and understandable even to lay people. However, underneath, or behind that theory, is often a great deal of information that can take up many volumes of books. So, for me to outline all the information I have used to come to these conclusions, would take a large book, if not several and is far beyond the scope of this article.

A unified theory is often proposed by some theorist before it can even be proven or fully supported by physical evidence. Over time, different lines of evidence, whether it be mathematical, physical, etc., supports the theory and thus solidifies that theory as being correct, or continued lines of evidence shows the theory needs to be revised or is simply incorrect. I feel there is now more than enough evidence at this point to give a unified theory of nutrition and continuing lines of evidence will continue (with some possible revisions) to solidify the theory as fact.

*"A calorie is a calorie"*

The old school of nutrition, which often includes most nutritionists, is a calorie is a calorie when it comes to gaining or losing weight. That weight loss or weight gain is strictly a matter of "calories in, calories out." Translated, if you "burn" more calories than you take in, you will lose weight regardless of the calorie source and if you eat more calories than you burn off each day, you will gain weight, regardless of the calorie source.

This long held and accepted view of nutrition is based on the fact that protein and carbs contain approx 4 calories per gram and fat approximately 9 calories per gram and the source of those calories matters not. They base this on the many studies that finds if one reduces calories by X number each day, weight loss is the result and so it goes if you add X number of calories above what you use each day for gaining weight.

However, the "calories in calories out" mantra fails to take into account modern research that finds that fats, carbs, and proteins have very different effects on the metabolism via countless pathways, such as their effects on hormones (e.g., insulin, leptin, glucagon, etc), effects on hunger and appetite, thermic effects (heat production), effects on uncoupling proteins (UCPs), and 1000 other effects that could be mentioned.

Even worse, this school of thought fails to take into account the fact that even within a macro nutrient, they too can have different effects on metabolism. This school of thought ignores the ever mounting volume of studies that have found diets with different macro nutrient ratios with identical calorie intakes have different effects on body composition, cholesterol levels, oxidative stress, etc.

Translated, not only is the mantra "a calorie us a calorie" proven to be false, "all fats are created equal" or "protein is protein" is also incorrect. For example, we now know different fats (e.g. fish oils vs. saturated fats) have vastly different effects on metabolism and health in general, as we now know different carbohydrates have their own effects (e.g. high GI vs. low GI), as we know different proteins can have unique effects.


​


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

*The "calories don't matter" school of thought*

This school of thought will typically tell you that if you eat large amounts of some particular macro nutrient in their magic ratios, calories don't matter. For example, followers of ketogenic style diets that consist of high fat intakes and very low carbohydrate intakes (i.e., Atkins, etc.) often maintain calories don't matter in such a diet.

Others maintain if you eat very high protein intakes with very low fat and carbohydrate intakes, calories don't matter. Like the old school, this school fails to take into account the effects such diets have on various pathways and ignore the simple realities of human physiology, not to mention the laws of thermodynamics!

The reality is, although it's clear different macro nutrients in different amounts and ratios have different effects on weight loss, fat loss, and other metabolic effects, calories do matter. They always have and they always will. The data, and real world experience of millions of dieters, is quite clear on that reality.

The truth behind such diets is that they are often quite good at suppressing appetite and thus the person simply ends up eating fewer calories and losing weight. Also, the weight loss from such diets is often from water vs. fat, at least in the first few weeks. That's not to say people can't experience meaningful weight loss with some of these diets, but the effect comes from a reduction in calories vs. any magical effects often claimed by proponents of such diets.

*Weight loss vs. fat loss!*

This is where we get into the crux of the true debate and why the two schools of thought are not actually as far apart from one another as they appear to the untrained eye. What has become abundantly clear from the studies performed and real world evidence is that to lose weight we need to use more calories than we take in (via reducing calorie intake and or increasing exercise), but we know different diets have different effects on the metabolism, appetite, body composition, and other physiological variables...

*Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition*

...Thus, this reality has led me to Brink's Unified Theory of Nutrition which states:

*"Total calories dictates how much weight a person gains or loses; *

*
macro nutrient ratios dictates what a person gains or loses"*

This seemingly simple statement allows people to understand the differences between the two schools of thought. For example, studies often find that two groups of people put on the same calorie intakes but very different ratios of carbs, fats, and proteins will lose different amounts of bodyfat and or lean body mass (i.e., muscle, bone, etc.).

Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets. This effect has also been seen in some studies that compared high fat/low carb vs. high carb/low fat diets. The effect is usually amplified if exercise is involved as one might expect.

Of course these effects are not found universally in all studies that examine the issue, but the bulk of the data is clear: diets containing different macro nutrient ratios do have different effects on human physiology even when calorie intakes are identical (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11).

*Or, as the authors of one recent study that looked at the issue concluded:*

"Diets with identical energy contents can have different effects on leptin concentrations, energy expenditure, voluntary food intake, and nitrogen balance, suggesting that the physiologic adaptations to energy restriction can be modified by dietary composition."(12)

The point being, there are many studies confirming that the actual ratio of carbs, fats, and proteins in a given diet can effect what is actually lost (i.e., fat, muscle, bone, and water) and that total calories has the greatest effect on how much total weight is lost. Are you starting to see how my unified theory of nutrition combines the "calorie is a calorie" school with the "calories don't matter" school to help people make decisions about nutrition?

Knowing this, it becomes much easier for people to understand the seemingly conflicting diet and nutrition advice out there (of course this does not account for the down right unscientific and dangerous nutrition advice people are subjected to via bad books, TV, the 'net, and well meaning friends, but that's another article altogether).

*Knowing the above information and keeping the Unified Theory of Nutrition in mind, leads us to some important and potentially useful conclusions:*

An optimal diet designed to make a person lose fat and retain as much LBM as possible is not the same as a diet simply designed to lose weight.

A nutrition program designed to create fat loss is not simply a reduced calorie version of a nutrition program designed to gain weight, and visa versa.

Diets need to be designed with fat loss, NOT just weight loss, as the goal, but total calories can't be ignored.

This is why the diets I design for people-or write about-for gaining or losing weight are not simply higher or lower calorie versions of the same diet. In short: diets plans I design for gaining LBM start with total calories and build macro nutrient ratios into the number of calories required. However, diets designed for fat loss (vs. weight loss!) start with the correct macro nutrient ratios that depend on variables such as amount of LBM the person carries vs. bodyfat percent , activity levels, etc., and figure out calories based on the proper macro nutrient ratios to achieve fat loss with a minimum loss of LBM. The actual ratio of macro nutrients can be quite different for both diets and even for individuals.

Diets that give the same macro nutrient ratio to all people (e.g., 40/30/30, or 70,30,10, etc.) regardless of total calories, goals, activity levels, etc., will always be less than optimal. Optimal macro nutrient ratios can change with total calories and other variables.

Perhaps most important, the unified theory explains why the focus on weight loss vs. fat loss by the vast majority of people, including most medical professionals, and the media, will always fail in the long run to deliver the results people want.

Finally, the Universal Theory makes it clear that the optimal diet for losing fat, or gaining muscle, or what ever the goal, must account not only for total calories, but macro nutrient ratios that optimize metabolic effects and answer the questions: what effects will this diet have on appetite? What effects will this diet have on metabolic rate? What effects will this diet have on my lean body mass (LBM)? What effects will this diet have on hormones; both hormones that may improve or impede my goals? What effects will this diet have on (fill in the blank)?

Simply asking, "how much weight will I lose?" is the wrong question which will lead to the wrong answer. To get the optimal effects from your next diet, whether looking to gain weight or lose it, you must ask the right questions to get meaningful answers.

Asking the right questions will also help you avoid the pitfalls of unscientific poorly thought out diets which make promises they can't keep and go against what we know about human physiology and the very laws of physics!

People that want to know my thoughts on the *correct way to lose fat* should read my ebook Diet Supplements Revealed, see this website *http://www.aboutsupplements.com*

There are of course many additional questions that can be asked and points that can be raised as it applies to the above, but those are some of the key issues that come to mind. Bottom line here is, if the diet you are following to either gain or loss weight does not address those issues and or questions, then you can count on being among the millions of disappointed people who don't receive the optimal results they had hoped for and have made yet another nutrition "guru" laugh all the way to the bank at your expense.

Any diet that claims calories don't matter, forget it. Any diet that tells you they have a magic ratio of foods, ignore it. Any diet that tells you any one food source is evil, it's a scam. Any diet that tells you it will work for all people all the time no matter the circumstances, throw it out or give it to someone you don't like!

*About the Author - William D. Brink *

Will Brink is a columnist, contributing consultant, and writer for various health/fitness, medical, and bodybuilding publications. His articles relating to nutrition, supplements, weight loss, exercise and medicine can be found in such publications as Lets Live, Muscle Media 2000, MuscleMag International, The Life Extension Magazine, Muscle n Fitness, Inside Karate, Exercise For Men Only, Body International, Power, Oxygen, Penthouse, Women's World and The Townsend Letter For Doctors. He is the author of Priming The Anabolic Environment and Weight Loss Nutrients Revealed. He is the Consulting Sports Nutrition Editor and a monthly columnist for Physical magazine and an Editor at Large for Power magazine. Will graduated from Harvard University with a concentration in the natural sciences, and is a consultant to major supplement, dairy, and pharmaceutical companies.

He has been co author of several studies relating to sports nutrition and health found in peer reviewed academic journals, as well as having commentary published in JAMA. He runs the highly popular web site BrinkZone.com which is strategically positioned to fulfill the needs and interests of people with diverse backgrounds and knowledge. The BrinkZone site has a following with many sports nutrition enthusiasts, athletes, fitness professionals, scientists, medical doctors, nutritionists, and interested lay people. William has been invited to lecture on the benefits of weight training and nutrition at conventions and symposiums around the U.S. and Canada, and has appeared on numerous radio and television programs.

William has worked with athletes ranging from professional bodybuilders, golfers, fitness contestants, to police and military personnel.
​
*Article References:*



(1) Farnsworth E, Luscombe ND, Noakes M, Wittert G, Argyiou E, Clifton PM. Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition, glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese hyperinsulinemic men and women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jul;78(1):31-9.

(2) Baba NH, Sawaya S, Torbay N, Habbal Z, Azar S, Hashim SA. High protein vs high carbohydrate hypoenergetic diet for the treatment of obese hyperinsulinemic subjects. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 Nov;23(11):1202-6.

(3) Parker B, Noakes M, Luscombe N, Clifton P. Effect of a high-protein, high-monounsaturated fat weight loss diet on glycemic control and lipid levels in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002 Mar;25(3):425-30.

(4) Skov AR, Toubro S, Ronn B, Holm L, Astrup A.Randomized trial on protein vs carbohydrate in ad libitum fat reduced diet for the treatment of obesity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 May;23(5):528-36.

(5) Piatti PM, Monti F, Fermo I, Baruffaldi L, Nasser R, Santambrogio G, Librenti MC, Galli-Kienle M, Pontiroli AE, Pozza G. Hypocaloric high-protein diet improves glucose oxidation and spares lean body mass: comparison to hypocaloric high-carbohydrate diet. Metabolism. 1994 Dec;43(12):1481-7.

(6) Layman DK, Boileau RA, Erickson DJ, Painter JE, Shiue H, Sather C, Christou DD. A reduced ratio of dietary carbohydrate to protein improves body composition and blood lipid profiles during weight loss in adult women. J Nutr. 2003 Feb;133(2):411-7.

(7) Golay A, Eigenheer C, Morel Y, Kujawski P, Lehmann T, de Tonnac N. Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Dec;20(12):1067-72.

(8) Meckling KA, Gauthier M, Grubb R, Sanford J. Effects of a hypocaloric, low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss, blood lipids, blood pressure, glucose tolerance, and body composition in free-living overweight women. Can J Physiol Pharmacol. 2002 Nov;80(11):1095-105.

(9) Borkman M, Campbell LV, Chisholm DJ, Storlien LH. Comparison of the effects on insulin sensitivity of high carbohydrate and high fat diets in normal subjects. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1991 Feb;72(2):432-7.

(10) Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D'Alessio DA. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2003 Apr;88(4):1617-23.

(11) Garrow JS, Durrant M, Blaza S, Wilkins D, Royston P, Sunkin S. The effect of meal frequency and protein concentration on the composition of the weight lost by obese subjects. Br J Nutr. 1981 Jan;45(1):5-15.

(12) Agus MS, Swain JF, Larson CL, Eckert EA, Ludwig DS. Dietary composition and physiologic adaptations to energy restriction.Am J Clin Nutr. 2000 Apr;71(4):901-7.
​


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Pscarb said:


> Tatyana thanks for the link but like i have said many many times this is only the opinion of one person and to be honest he has some valid points.
> 
> But he is mainly talking about Keto diets the thread is concerning Low V Moderate carb intake....
> 
> ...


I agree with what you have posted as well, however Mr. Hackskii recommends a keto diet to nearly every new member. This is what I have taken issue with. THe keto diet is NOT a good option for everyone, in fact, I think it is highly irresponsible to suggest it!


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Tinytom said:


> It is impossible to acheive 4% bodyfat because 5% of bodyfat is internal organ fat essential for survival.
> 
> Also I've seen pics of this guy on stage and no way is he close to 4%. His conditioning is not even close to some of the top amateur naturals in this country such as Rob Feesey, Dean Garrett, Ian stocks etc.
> 
> ...


Yes, my diet records show that I am often low to moderate carbs (according to the definitions I posted earlier), and I do find that carb cycling and carb tapering are the way to get 'ripped'.

As I mentioned, my issue is with the keto diet, when people state that eating zero carb or less than somewhere in between 30-70 g is applicable to people who just want to lose some weight (I would claim body fat) who ARE NOT competitive bodybuilders!

I think that a more balanced approach to diet is more appropriate for the majority of people, and COMPLETELY eliminating one of the macronutrients IS NOT a sensible diet for the majority of people. I think you will find that it is not me that is taking a positional stance on diet, I am for moderation, transition food, just getting people to eat a healthy version of bread, not one loaded with refined sugar, IMO, is a victory!


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Well, that is not what I said.

I said there was nothing wrong with a low carb diet.

That is what I said.

Taking my words out of context is irresponsible.

You suggest irresponsible as if there are health concerns here.

Hate to break the news to you that Keto diets are safe.

I never suggested that they are permanent like you say I suggest.

Read Atkins book if you want to understand what keto is and does and how long one should stay on it. Keto diets do work and are not unhealthy as you suggest by saying I am irresponsible.

By suggesting I am irresponsible is just your effort to get even with me or to make look bad on the board. Don't be a spoiled sport here. Post up your information and let it go.

I told you this debate was going to happen.

Your own words are low carb diets are a NO NO!

Your words to TinyTom several posts ago.

I said low carb diets do work.....There is evidence they do work and many of the members use this type of diets for comps.

I do suggest keto type diets for some people and this is not irresponsible.

You can diet how ever you want, so can I. I know what works for me and what doesn't.

I am carb sensitive and low carb helps me to lose fat. I feel good and am looking much better. This only validates my point.

I did a keto diet for about 6-7 weeks and felt great, is this irresponsible?


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

For the record fat is the most efficient fuel the body has.

Protein whether taken or used is the least efficient.

And there in lies an important factor in people wanting to lose weight/bodyfat. As you only get about 87% of the calories from protein (the rest is considered thermogenic), you will be taking in fewer calories from your food, and being able to eat more. I forget what percentage of the calories are lost in the digestive/thermogenic process for carbohydrates, somewhere around 94%. HOWEVER 100% of the calories from FAT, which is a very SMALL macronutrient 1 g = 9 kcal, compared to the other two 1 g = 4 kcal.

One can eat an entire brocolli+ before it even comes close to one tablespoon (15g) of fat.

I am not saying DO NOT EAT FAT! I am saying that a diet that is high in fat and protein, eliminating all carbohydrates is not sound dietary advice.


----------



## Killerkeane (Nov 9, 2003)

Wow, what a thread.... Loving it 

Really good information, has helped me a lot in understanding certain aspects to the role of fats in diet and nutrition.

Hackskii, your knowledge on fats outstands me mate, very impressive indeed.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Tatyana said:


> For the record fat is the most efficient fuel the body has.
> 
> Protein whether taken or used is the least efficient.
> 
> ...


Now I agree with you here.

Remember depending on the fat has zero effects on the storage hormone insulin.

Where as carbohydrates and depending on which ones have the highest effects on spiking insulin.

if you ate 200 cals of fat compared to 200 cals of glucose the fat would increase fat stores less in comparison to the glucose.

Not only that but because insulin lowered your blood sugar you would be hungrier after the gluscose than the fat.

Fat supresses hunger better than carbs.

Adding fat in your diet slows down spiking of the carbs in the meal.

I will take it to an extreme here but you can live without carbohydrates and you can not live without fat.

Taking in Omega 3 fatty acids reduces inflammation along with a host of benefits and actually aids in fat burning, it revs up your brown fat burning machine.

Again, low carb diets are not unhealthy.

Ketogenic diets have been around since the 1860's

100 years later they reappeared.

Keto diets can lower cholesterol and will lower triglycerides.

Saying they are irresponsible or unhealthy is actually not true and there is no medical evidence to support your opinion.

On the other hand Atkins was a Cardiologist and in his books are case studies that confirm they are safe.

100 years ago they used to treat epileptic children for epilepsy using ketogenic diets and were successful till the introduction of drugs this was the method of choice for treating them. Studies ran for over a year and no health concerns.

Again look at the Eskimos and you will see there were no carbohydrates in their diets and they lived long healthy lives in the worst environment.

Again saying I am irresponsible in recommending them only shows that you are basing this on your opinion and not fact.

Let me say that you are wrong in saying they are unhealthy and until there is any proof otherwise it is only your opinion and nothing more than you defending your own argument.

Calling me irresponsible or my advice is not sound is based on your own opinion and has no merrit.

In fact it shows you are only defensive and acting childish.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

The Ketogenic Diet

The ketogenic diet is a special high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet that helps to control seizures in some people with epilepsy. It is prescribed by a physician.

The name ketogenic means that it produces ketones in the body (keto = ketone, genic = producing). Ketones are formed when the body uses fat for its source of energy. Usually the body usually uses carbohydrates (such as sugar, bread, pasta) for its fuel, but because the ketogenic diet is very low in carbohydrates, fats become the primary fuel instead. Ketones are not dangerous. They can be detected in the urine. Ketones are one of the likely reasons why the diet works to help seizures, although we still do not know why they help.

Who will it help?

Doctors usually recommend the ketogenic diet for children whose seizures have not responded to several different seizure medicines. It is particularly recommended for children with the Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, but also has benefits for children with infantile spasms, Dravet syndrome, tuberous sclerosis, Doose syndrome, and children with gastrostomy tubes (easy to provide).

Doctors seldom recommend the ketogenic diet for adults. Although adults seem to do well on the diet, it is often restrictive for them to stay on it for long periods of time. The Atkins diet may be an alternative, and is being studied for adults. The ketogenic diet can also be used in infants and adolescents.

What is it like?

The typical ketogenic diet, called the "long-chain triglyceride diet," provides 3 to 4 grams of fat for every 1 gram of carbohydrate and protein. The dietician recommends a daily diet that contains 75 to 100 calories for every kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight and 1-2 grams of protein for every kilogram of body weight. If this sounds complicated, it is! Foods, calories, and fluids are all carefully calculated for the individual child. That's why parents need a dietician's help.

The kinds of foods that provide fat for the ketogenic diet are butter, cream, mayonnaise, and heavy whipping cream. The diet can be made creatively, and many families use foods such as shrimp, cheese, hot dogs, nuts, and sugar-free jello to make it tastier for kids. Because the amount of carbohydrate and protein in the diet have to be restricted, it is very important that the meals be prepared carefully. No other sources of carbohydrates can be eaten. (Even toothpaste and some medications might have some sugar in it!). For this reason, the ketogenic diet is supervised by a dietician. The parents and the child become very familiar with what can and cannot be eaten.

Alternatives being investigated include a modified Atkins diet and a low glycemic index diet (at Johns Hopkins Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital, respectively). Both allow for more carbohydrates and protein and avoid the need for hospitalizations, weighing foods, and fasting. However, both have possible side effects and should not be done without a physician or dietitian involved.

What happens first?

Typically the diet is started in the hospital. The child usually begins by fasting (except for water) under close medical supervision for 48 hours. For instance, the child might go into the hospital on Monday, start fasting at 6 p.m. and continue to have only water until 6 a.m. on Wednesday. Then the child's urine is tested to see if it shows ketones. If ketones are found, the diet is then begun. The child stays in the hospital for another 2 to 3 days for close monitoring. During this time, the parents are taught more about the diet. Some hospitals and ketogenic diet centers do not fast, or shorten it. There is good evidence for both approaches.

Does it work?

Several studies have shown that the ketogenic diet does reduce or prevent seizures in many children whose seizures could not be controlled by medications. Over half of children who go on the diet have at least a 50% reduction in the number of their seizures. Some children, about 1 in 10, even become seizure-free.

Children who are on the ketogenic diet continue to take seizure medicines. Some are able to take smaller doses or fewer medicines than before they started the diet, however.

It is not clear how the diet works, though doctors have some theories. What is clear is that it must be followed precisely. If the person goes off the diet for even one meal, it may lose its good effect. So it is very important to stick with the diet as prescribed. It can be especially hard to follow the diet 100% if there are other children at home who are on a normal diet. Small children who have free access to the refrigerator are tempted by "forbidden" foods. Parents need to work as closely as possible with a dietician.

Are there any side effects?

A person starting the ketogenic diet may feel sluggish for a few days after the diet is started. Common side effects include constipation, increased cholesterol, and acidosis. Most of these are very treatable. More infrequent side effects include kidney stones (1 in 20), slowed growth (especially in babies), weight loss, and bone fractures.

Because the diet does not provide all the vitamins and minerals found in a balanced diet, the dietician will recommend vitamin and mineral supplements. The most important of these are calcium and vitamin D (to prevent thinning of the bones), iron, and folic acid. .

How is the patient monitored over time?

Early on, the doctor will usually see the child every 1-3 months. Blood tests are performed to make sure there are no medical problems. The height and weight are measured to see if growth has slowed down. As the child gains weight, the diet may need to be adjusted by the dietician..

Can the diet ever be stopped?

If seizures have been well controlled for some time, the doctor might suggest going off the diet after about 2 years. Usually, the patient is gradually taken off the diet over several months or even longer. Just as happens if seizure medicines are stopped suddenly, seizures may become much worse if the ketogenic diet is stopped all at once. Children usually continue to take seizure medicines after they go off the diet. However, many children with good success on the diet stay on for many years.

Topic Editor: Steven C. Schachter, M.D.

Last Reviewed:10/17/05


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Haaaaa Haaaaa

Another marketing ploy to suggest he has some cutting edge usefull information that makes dieting tailored just for fat loss for each individule.

IMPORTANT PRICE UPDATE -- Due to the success of our recent marketing tests we have extended our special offer and will continue to maintain the discounted price to just $69 $39 (for a limited time only). We will maintain this offer as long as the increase in sales continues to outweigh the reduction in price. If at any point in the future it doesn't, then Diet Supplements Revealed will return to the normal price of $69 without any prior notice.

Above is his marketing ploy to sell you his good information that targets fat loss due to "His Unified Throry".

Oh man if this not some funny stuff here OMG, what a dork.

I bet his E-Book is not any better than that other Vince dude

These guys make tons of money fleecing the flock in hopes of having that magic bullet e-book for fat loss.



Tatyana said:


> Some studies find for example people on a higher protein lower carb diet lose approximately the same amount of weight as another group on a high carb lower protein diet, but the group on the higher protein diet lost more actual fat and less lean body mass (muscle). Or, some studies using the same calorie intakes but different macro nutrient intakes often find the higher protein diet may lose less actual weight than the higher carb lower protein diets, but the actual fat loss is higher in the higher protein low carb diets.


Sure taking this piece out appears to be out of context but man oh man are you making my job easier Tatyana.

This is what everyone says. 

Dude is beating round the bush to say what I and most are already saying.

This is too funny.

Hey honey keep posting more stuff, It only validates what I am saying anyway.

Keep up the good work

Haaaa haaaa


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Your own words are low carb diets are a NO NO!

Your words to TinyTom several posts ago.

I said low carb diets do work.....There is evidence they do work and many of the members use this type of diets for comps.

I do suggest keto type diets for some people and this is not irresponsible.

I think the issue is not out of context but an issue of semantics, we throw around these terms like low carb and keto but DO NOT DEFINE THEM. Some people think that less than 20 g of carbs/day is a low carb diet, others would call it a keto diet. Therein lies the confusion.

Sure taking this piece out appears to be out of context but man oh man are you making my job easier Tatyana.

This is what everyone says. And we all know that agreement dicates realityDude is beating round the bush to say what I and most are already saying.

This is too funny.

Hey honey keep posting more stuff, It only validates what I am saying anyway.

Keep up the good work

Haaaa haaaa

So who is trying to make who look bad? So what is the difference between buying book in a shop or on-line? Are you suggesting that people need not be financially compensated for their knowledge? I don't think that people asking money for 'what they know' invalidates their knowledge.

I keep telling you we are arguing the same point, I just have noticed that 'dropping your carbs' seems to be the first bit of dietary advice that is given. This gleeful attitude is not condusive to a debate, therefore, I do not see any point in continuing, unless the approach to 'fighting fair' is applied.


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

hackskii said:


> By suggesting I am irresponsible is just your effort to get even with me or to make look bad on the board. Don't be a spoiled sport here. Post up your information and let it go.
> 
> I told you this debate was going to happen.
> 
> ...


This is not a debate. It is not my intention to make you look bad. I am sorry if you feel this way.

I do find it interesting that only the articles that have been cut and pasted in by yourself are valid, Mr. Brink has referenced his article with 12 papers from medical and scientific journals, he is a Harvard graduate and is a consultant to quite a number of reputable organisations. And he is referred to as a 'dork'.

I have asked you for the original references to the research that you quote. These have not materialised.

I will state it again, this is not a debate.


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

Dork term was merely used because he makes himself out to have this magic formula and only he has the ingredients.

He has all those diplomas and all that information and says nothing and beats around the bush in hopes of selling this magic formula in an e-book.

I would not mind looking at that e-book but I will not give him one dime towards buying it, there is nothing new and everything is already known.

Did you or did you not say keto diets were unhealthy?

I would like a yes or no on this answer.

Ketosis happens when you drop your carbs to under 30 grams a day. Some have to drop your carbs even to zero to get into ketosis.

When this happens massive fat loss happens, faster than anything I have ever seen.

Is this a bad thing?

Now if you answered the above answer no then what is the problem?

If you answered the above question as yes then you will have to give something other than your opinion why in fact it is unhealthy. Careful with this answer too as I have heard all the bad things that are suggested, I am really curious to this all.

Oh and another quiz for you.

Why is it that I don't go into ketosis even at zero carbs?

Again if you answered yes to the above then if I am not in ketosis (checked with keto strips first urination in the morning) would this still be bad using no carbs and not in ketosis?

Beings that you have such high regard against keto type dieting then you will have no problem answering those questions.

Beings that I was labeled irresponsible in my posting I am sure you can give me details as to why you said this. I mean beings that you are not picking on me then you have no reason not to enlighten me.

Look foreword to your post mate.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

To be fair guys you both have a lot of arguments for both your cases.

Brink and Venuto's books are aimed at the masses who have no in depth knowledge.

I could write a book on bodybuilding training and nutrition and someone would always pick it apart for not being 100% accurate but it would benefit the majority.

That's what Hackskii is getting at Tatyana, you can't bring these types of references to this level of discussion because it's mostly basic stuff full of buzz words. What would be more relevant would be a study from a recognised journal about low-moderate carb diets.

I know they are out there cos I've got a subscription to Athens (online journal service).


----------



## John (Jun 5, 2004)

Calling me irresponsible or my advice is not sound is based on your own opinion and has no merrit.

In fact it shows you are only defensive and acting childish.


----------



## crazycacti (Jun 20, 2004)

Tinytom said:


> I know they are out there cos I've got a subscription to Athens (online journal service).


Mines been invaluable too


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Tinytom said:


> To be fair guys you both have a lot of arguments for both your cases.
> 
> Brink and Venuto's books are aimed at the masses who have no in depth knowledge.
> 
> ...


Yes, This is my point! THe argument is POINTLESS to most peeps!

BACK TO BASICS! Most people do NOT even know what a carb is! So all this advanced diet stuff is just going to confuse people. THAT is what I mean by irresponsible.

One post from a newbie saying I want to lose weight, well, I think for most just getting BASICS about eating 'clean', of which I have given a definition, is probably more useful.

I WOULD NOT recommend a BB diet, low carb diet or keto diet to most people, these are quite advanced, and most people would just benefit with learning how to eat quite healthy, learning to limit 'cheats' to one meal or one day.

I was trying to get at this, obviously I did not explain myself all that well. Hackskii loves and hates all the higher education medical stuff, so I thought we could indulge ourselves a bit, but it really has just led to a bit of a messy argument! As I mentioned on another thread, mental masturbation!

I spent years working with environmental group, public education. There was a serious issue with pulp and paper mills using chlorine to bleach paper, generated dioxins, and an alternate oxygen bleaching process was available. I used to go into the principles of ecology and biomagnification of toxins, until I realised that most people did not have a CLUE as to what I was talking about. In a lot of neighbourhoods I found I got a better response, and more donations when I would just say 'Fish sick (had a picture of a fish with a lesion from VAncouver harbour as well), we clean water)'. I also learned how to say this in a couple of languages!

I think the same might apply to this thread.

Scott, you have studied diets for 20 years and yes, you knowledge is fantastic, I have altered a few thing as a result. You know this, you know I have taken you advice on board. HOWEVER, think about where you were when you started!

BABY steps man, BABY steps before most can walk and eventually RUN.

Respect

T


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Sorry Taty you misunderstood me.

What I meant to say was that if you are going to argue these points at this level then you have to use journal references from recognised literature. Popular diet books don't count.

This thread is all about in depth discussion so no need to worry about beginners getting confused, lets discuss some of the greater macro issues.

TT


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

hackskii said:


> Dork term was merely used because he makes himself out to have this magic formula and only he has the ingredients.
> 
> He has all those diplomas and all that information and says nothing and beats around the bush in hopes of selling this magic formula in an e-book.
> 
> ...


I am glad you are using keto strips, however, there can be a great deal of error in using these strips. I have used them myself!

I am not convinced it is possible to do zero carbs, would you be able to post a days diet on zero carbs? What sort of food have absolutely zero carbs in them besides meat and dairy? I will look up cheese and milk.

I may have not made my point clear, I do have some concerns about the keto diet, just for the same reasons Mr. Venuto stated. THe number of people I have seen completely GET SERIOUSLY FAT after they come off the ATkins/keto diet is CRAZY! You are slowly reintroducing carbs, most people would not be aware of how to manage a keto diet correctly!

This is why I think it is irresponsible. Most people do not have the advanced knowledge and practice that you have had. I will state it again, JUST GO BACK TO WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED LOOKING INTO DIET, most people are CLUELESS!

The number of people that tell me they 'eat a healthy diet' and do not know why 'they can't lose weight', like my photographer, who went about 6 hours without eating and then had a coke and a banana for lunch, or my friend who asks me 'is vinager ok to eat' as she is putting it on her chips/fries, or all the people that think just because it says 'low fat' or healthy eating range that it is a good way to lose weight!

The worst is when people start telling me, very proudly I might add, that they have only had a low fat cup a soup for lunch and salad in the evening. THIS is what we are up against.

How many posts do we get about people wanting to start on Clem, or even worse, T3, when we probably know that they REALLY haven't looked PROPERLY into their diet or exercise!

They want the magic bullet, the quick fix, and a lot of people on this forum KNOW that while it may be quite a SIMPLE process to lose weight/body fat for most people, it is NOT EASY.

So KISS Hackskii (Keep It Simple Stupid)!

Respect

T


----------



## Tatyana (Jan 29, 2006)

Tinytom said:


> Sorry Taty you misunderstood me.
> 
> What I meant to say was that if you are going to argue these points at this level then you have to use journal references from recognised literature. Popular diet books don't count.
> 
> ...


OH I wish I had more TIME, my Uni library has rows and rows of all of the major nutritional and physiology journals, as does the hospital library! I have an Athens account, but I often find I have to visit more than one library and dig the papers out from the stacks!

I get the feeling I may have to do this though, maybe we need to move this thread into an advanced section!

I am still learning loads about diet and training, it has been a LONG PROCESS, and there are all sorts of issue besides the hard cold scientific facts tied up with people and what they eat. People who get to be seriously overweight, IMO do it either because

1. They are really not aware of the effect of food on the body

2. They have never learned/been taught how to feed themselves properly

3 They are using food as a drug, self-medication to make themselve feel better

4. They really are completely unconscious/unaware of what they are actually feeding themselves and need a 'reality check'

I didn' really want to get into a higher debate, my interest is more with helping people just get a basic healthy diet started! I have a coach who is helping me sort out the finer details of my diet and training, and I do realise that when you get to a more advanced level all of these parameters do become highly individualistic!

My intention is just for people to become more AWARE of what they are eating. I am a firm believer in YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT, and the Hippocratic principle 'Let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food'.

With the obesity epidemic going on, I see forums such as this as being a really useful tool in assisting and supporting people to sort out their lifestyle

T:withstupi


----------



## hackskii (Jul 27, 2003)

At the time of my keto diet it just was really meat, bacon, eggs, a whey shake after workout with no carbs or fats (I noticed this actually slowed my results), chicken with the skin, heavy cream, butter for cooking, fish oils @ 12 a day, sometimes a few more and some cheese that was high fat and zero carbs.

Only protein and fats, and was always less than 20 grams a day of carbs (including the ones in the whey). Diet took off very well roughly a half a lb a day on average. Very impressed with the fat loss and used stomach measurements to verify inches loss in comparison to weigh loss.

I was also impressed with the high amounts of energy.

This diet did not slow me down in the gym or being active what so ever, in fact I felt I had actually more energy.

If mood has any indication of health, I considered myself healthy.

Measurements were tracked on a huge desk calendar with my mood, my waist size, weight loss and even the supplements I took.

Even the intensity of workouts and any cardio days (only a few) were used to gauge where I was going and what I was doing.

I didn't have to go into this detail but it kept me motivated and have months to reflect back and see where it was I had the most or least success.

This was mostly for motivation and information only.

I do have a goal for summer time and that is the third week in May where it is the first big holiday for the summer and the River is really happening. I want to be in the best shape of my life. Beings I am 46 I do not see this as a hindrance to my goal of having one of the best bodies at the River. I feel that my knowledge on diets and workouts will apply nicely here to aid in this goal.

Pretty sad when an old man has a better body than many of the obese kids out there.

This is just my goal and I am very motivated in achieving this goal. I see it as not only achievable but I am excited to see just where it takes me.

Pics will be posted before the river.

If I can do it anybody can and even younger guys have a better chance than me.

Right now I have added in some carbs. First day was 55 grams of carbs in apple, tomato, and some collagen. I noticed that the next day the body did like it and actually lost more weight.

I have been increasing the carbs very slowly and have added some asparagus to the above too.

Fist thing I noticed was more elimination of waste. Now 4 days into my carb additions and I am really losing fast. Too much in fact and now I have to increase the food even more.

Right now I am very impressed with what is going on.

If someone is interested I would list the things I am doing now supplement wise upon request.

Sorry if I was going a bit deep, I like to think there is an answer for everything and I do ask a lot of questions which I usually find answers for. I just assumed that people understand me and take that for granted. Some of the people I talk to during the course of the day understand and for this I took it for granted everyone understands what it is I am saying. Sorry if I overcomplicate things.

I buy diet books just to see how the author does his diet. Not to pick holes in it which I do see but to get pieces of information out of it as to why does he or she do this and for what reason.

I don't even follow the diets but buy the books for info.

I look at everything as being a huge puzzle and I like to keep the pieces that fit (for me) and just keep the other pieces on the side. I hardly ever forget the pieces as this is important to me but other things I have a terrible memory for.

Again if you look for it there are contradictions in all diets but sometimes it gets verified in a different writing and an explanation.

Cheers Tatyana, love your mind, not trying to beat you up, just get frustrated at times and take it out on you in a very direct way.

I am sorry for being so harsh on you, I am a sensitive guy and this is the reason for my harshness.


----------



## Peg (Feb 9, 2006)

This has been quite an interesting thread.

I've understood it all.

Carbs can be addictive. They promote the same feel good endorphines.

I wonder if the keto diets act as a purging and detox of carb adictions??

I wonder if those who get terrible fat again after being on them are just intensifying their addiction?

I think every diet and every idea presented here will have its merit in "shocking" the body into a new form of adaptation.

The real issue for any success isn't about the amount of carbs.

It is about the commitment of the person to change his life style to be healthy and fit in a knowlegable responsible manner. That will take an active desire to learn about the body, re-work the mental habits about food, and change eating habits and life style.

Nature abborrs a vacuum and so anything you delete, you must have something to replace it.

Hence you have journals and journals and rows upon rows of diet books telling you what those replacements should be.

The question becomes which one works best for each individual person?

I think all information should be factored in for newbies as they learn the basics. By having a basic understanding of how the body works, it is easier for them to regulate their own diet and know what their body needs and when.

I think that same principle applies to the advanced body builders because their needs will be different and more advanced in creating new adaptations in more sublte biochemistries of the body.

The key for us on the forum is presenting that information in an understandable, practical, useable fashion for both beginners and advanced bodybuilders and perhaps have that bibliography of references for any reader to further advance his learning on what is posted in the forum.

I say a person starting out should not deny his appetite, but learn portion control in eating whatever his diet is at the moment, he then should learn how to overcome his addiction to white sugar and process foods by slowly learning how to make healthy food choices and by replacing the processed foods with those healthy choices, He should learn basic metabolism 101 which covers when his body will demand more carbs, protein, and fats during the day to day activities of work, training, stress, play, sleep or sickness.. '

Notice that the focus is really mental here and is expressed in the physical.

Until the mind is committed and the habit is established, knowledge will not be consistently applied and success will be illusive. Each person will then with the knowledge find his own successful path just as we all have done.

LOL.. just MY OPINION!!!!!  :lift: :beer1: based on my own experience as an educator and conqueror of my own flab war.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Excellant post Peg..



Peg said:


> The real issue for any success isn't about the amount of carbs.
> 
> It is about the commitment of the person to change his life style to be healthy and fit in a knowlegable responsible manner. That will take an active desire to learn about the body, re-work the mental habits about food, and change eating habits and life style.


agree 100% with this statement


----------

