# Calories, Burn or Omitt?



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

Why is it the done thing to do loads of cardio on a cut? Why not just under eat a bit more?

It's a genuine question I don't understand.

It seems easier to me to just not eat 400 Kcal than spend 40 minutes on a treadmill burning them off.

What am I missing? I meanthey aren't doing any good for building muscle (the calories) if they are haveing to be burnt off anyway.

Discuss pls


----------



## sizar (Nov 13, 2008)

Yes mate i have heard this before as well..

from personal experience .. diet does work .. but when you do cardio with it the conditioning is better.

i think it speeds up your metabolism rate as well.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

sizar said:


> Yes mate i have heard this before as well..
> 
> from personal experience .. diet does work .. but when you do cardio with it *the conditioning is better. *
> 
> i think it speeds up your metabolism rate as well.


Cardio isn't really for fat loss - it's for cardiovascular health.

AFAIK it only speeds up your metabolism while you're doing it.

You have to do an awful lot of cardio to shift a kilo of fat.

The quickest way to lose fat is to limit carbs.

BTW you can get some good CV exercise by lifting heavy weights - squats and deadlifts, for instance.


----------



## sizar (Nov 13, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Cardio isn't really for fat loss - it's for cardiovascular health.
> 
> AFAIK it only speeds up your metabolism while you're doing it.
> 
> ...


No comment mate :lol:


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

is there a bigger dif between general cardio v limited cals and fasted cardio v limited cals?

e.g. does fasted cardion burn fat but not muscle, where as limiting cals results in more muscle wastage?

does non fasted cardion burn more muscle than fasted cardio?


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

a.notherguy said:


> is there a bigger dif between general cardio v limited cals and fasted cardio v limited cals?
> 
> e.g. does fasted cardion burn fat but not muscle, where as limiting cals results in more muscle wastage?
> 
> does non fasted cardion burn more muscle than fasted cardio?


So long as you work out you won't lose any muscle by limiting carbs until you get really emaciated!


----------



## Unit_69 (Jul 9, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Cardio isn't really for fat loss - it's for cardiovascular health.
> 
> *AFAIK it only speeds up your metabolism while you're doing it.*
> 
> ...


Cardio can lead to a raised metabolic rate for hours after the exercise period although this is more likely in higher intensity cardio exercise,

The current consensus is that the majority of weight loss will occur due to changes in diet, however the most effective strategy is diet and exericse combined. This may lead to a small but significant effect in weight loss, prob no more than a few pounds, in the general population anyway.


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> So long as you work out you won't lose any muscle by limiting carbs until you get really emaciated!


thanks pro


----------



## tom_91 (Jul 7, 2009)

So if someone was eating 500 cals below maintenance, and doing cardio, would they limit their fat loss due to burning off calories,so essentially getting about 700 cals below maintenance? With the body encouraged to hold on to weight??


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

The metabolic rise post CV can't be much worth shouting about I mean I't arithmatic right?

Your static body isn't going to burn much more cals than it would any other time just caused you jogged a bit earlier surely.....?

Think what a bad survival mechanism that would be in times of famine??


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Unit_69 said:


> Cardio can lead to a raised metabolic rate for hours after the exercise period although this is more likely in higher intensity cardio exercise, ...


Really? Interesting. Any data?

As a commercial diver I had to do an increasingly stringent total medical every year.

One part was doing extended inclined treadmill sessions plumbed in to oxygen/ breathing/heart rate/blood pressure/temperature/metabolism monitors.

A measure of fitness was how quickly your system reverted to baseline, and I don't recall my metabolism staying raised afterwards.


----------



## Tinytom (Sep 16, 2005)

Main issue you have to consider is that reduction in calories will eentually trigger a lower thyroid output as you approach a starvation level.

INcreasing output while keepin calories stable means that this can be warded off.

part of the reason why some people train twice a day and can diet on 400g carbs.

although everyone is different.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

Is there anyone who has reached a good condition or even a stage condition without CV?


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Tinytom said:


> Main issue you have to consider is that reduction in calories will eentually trigger a lower thyroid output as you approach a starvation level.
> 
> INcreasing output while keepin calories stable means that this can be warded off.
> 
> ...


Totally agree, and this is the main reason for using extra workload to achieve part of the calorie loss, and it works well... reducing calories slowly rather than quickly also can help, both to preserve metabolic rate and muscle mass as a result.

In respect of carb reduction mentioned previously that still only works to any degree of significance combined with caloric deficit... you need to be in energy deficit to burn subcutaneous fat. Carb reduction will make the process a little easier though, by lowering insulin which inhibits fat burning, but very low carbs also increase lean tissue loss to gluconeogenesis, and slightly limit the ability to gain lean muscle due to the increased cortisol that regulates the gluconeogenesis process and it's effects of blocking androgen receptors in the muscle.

In respect of EPOC and the calories bruned during exercise, it's important to remember that fat burned during exercise itself is almost all intramuscular fat and not subcutaneous fat... the latter form of fat burning mostly comes from EPOC and general non exercise metabolic rate and caloric deficit.

To increase EPOC, HIIT style cardio does it slightly better than steady state cardio, but resistance training does it better than HIIT.

A nice article on EPOC and resistance training here - http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/epoc.html


----------



## Unit_69 (Jul 9, 2009)

Prodiver said:


> Really? Interesting. Any data?


Have attached a couple papers, hope they work OK. I'm not saying it's a huge effect size, just arguiing the point when you said it only speeds your metabolism up during the session

Uriel, I think from my reading of the literature diet has been demonstrated to have the largest effect, the addition of exercise can have an additional small benefit, and cardio is beneficial for a wide array of health benefits which are independent of any significant weight loss. Hence the reason I try and do some sort of cardio every day if I can as only a recreational trainer, but I can understand why those at a more competitive level might not want to do any at all and just manipulate diet

laforgia 2006.pdf

Speakman2003-1.pdf


----------



## YetiMan1436114545 (Dec 7, 2007)

I'm confused now!


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Yep, me too!

So my 45 minutes fasted morning cardio that I've been doing for the last few days is going to do sweet fvck all then?


----------



## SonOfZeus (Feb 15, 2009)

Obviously you become fitter using CV opposed to just diet.. which is invaluable, I can't imagine you'd look or feel very good just relying on diet (regardless of whether it works or not).. Not only that, but it is more of a commitment imo if you workout to reach your goal, you're putting in some effort each day to accomplish something, which is just beneficial towards life in general.

I quite enjoy my CV sessions as I watch a program/film whilst on the bike (fasted cardio), if I relied soley on diet this cut would have been very boring so far and I'd of likely lost motivation to even bother!


----------



## Unit_69 (Jul 9, 2009)

Smitch said:


> Yep, me too!
> 
> So my 45 minutes fasted morning cardio that I've been doing for the last few days is going to do sweet fvck all then?


I think it will help, but manipulation of diet is the more powerful tool out of the two for fat loss. Combined the two will produce more of an effect than either method seperately


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Smitch said:


> Yep, me too!
> 
> So my 45 minutes fasted morning cardio that I've been doing for the last few days is going to do sweet fvck all then?


Not at all, exercise burns calories - simple as that.

Exercise uses up quick energy stores (intramuscular fat, glycogen, muscle protein) for its energy, but afterwards the body now has the caloric cost of replacing those important stores... the intramuscular fat burnt will be replaced by calories from diet, which will mean that you have less calories available from diet to fuel metabolism... which, if in a caloric deficit, will mean extra subcutaneous fat used as an alternate fuel for metabolism to those that diet cannot provide... and there's your desired fat loss.

You still lose the flab as it becomes a greater source of fuel for metabolism, it's just not a simple one stage process as many people assume.

Lowering carbs also helps because carbs are a very efficient fuel source whereas fats and protein are not (it takes a much more complex and energy expensive set of processes to turn stored energy in fat and protein to ATP than it does to turn carbs into ATP), and a less efficient use of the fuel going in means less available calories available for metabolism... which means greater use of subcutaneous fat for fuel in a deficit.

This is the metabolic advantage people talk about. It's small, and often over hyped, but it does contribute.


----------



## ste247 (Mar 18, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Cardio isn't really for fat loss - it's for cardiovascular health.
> 
> AFAIK it only speeds up your metabolism while you're doing it.
> 
> ...


 the quickest way to lose fat isnt to limit carbs imo, if you take way carbs or fat you will lose weight, the quickest way to lose fat is to drop your calories to X amount under maintenace and you will lose wight so that be either a reduction in carbs or fat or even protien if your not botherd about muscle loss, but we dont reduce pro as thats would be silly so either carbs or fat will do.....



Tinytom said:


> Main issue you have to consider is that reduction in calories will eentually trigger a lower thyroid output as you approach a starvation level.
> 
> INcreasing output while keepin calories stable means that this can be warded off.
> 
> ...


 i agree^^^^^^ cardio should be done at the correct time, ie when you stop losing fat by just dieting without doing cardio instead of reducing cals further and risking lower thyroid out put just add a bit of cardio...


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

cardio has many benefits 0 but lets be honest the biggest one - cutting calories sucks

who the hell wants to eat less:lol:


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

glen danbury said:


> cardio has many benefits 0 but lets be honest the biggest one - cutting calories sucks
> 
> who the hell wants to eat less:lol:


Exactly, why you would want to eat less instead of doing cardio is beyond me and i imagine the only people who would suggest this have never been sub 8%bf.

Plus eating less means you are going to be more hungry and crave food which to me = more chance of cheating/crashing on diet.

I would much rather eat more and burn more than the other way round and this isnt taking into consideration the benefits of doing cardio.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

hilly said:


> Exactly, why you would want to eat less instead of doing cardio is beyond me and i imagine the only people who would suggest this have never been sub 8%bf.
> 
> Plus eating less means you are going to be more hungry and crave food which to me = more chance of cheating/crashing on diet.
> 
> I would much rather eat more and burn more than the other way round and this isnt taking into consideration the benefits of doing cardio.


That is actually the point of my thread.....I actually cannot see the point of eating say an extra 500 Kcal then Having to go on a treadmill to burn it off....

I accept some of the great points made so far regarding benefits or the need to ward off thyroid wynd down but I don't get this one mate = eat do loads of cardio just to eat a bit more food.

I have lost a lot of weight (circa 4 stone)- many times just by diet restrictions but I would not say my condition was great after it


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

depends what your current claoire consumption is and what condition you want to get to - as soon as my calories are around 2500kcals I can not take cutting anymore as i get grumpy as hell so cardio is the prefered option

I can get lean on next to no cardio and 300kcals intake, but to get proper cut requires cutting kcals low or doing some form of activity - and i would always opt for the activity


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

Uriel said:


> That is actually the point of my thread.....I actually cannot see the point of eating say an extra 500 Kcal then Having to go on a treadmill to burn it off....
> 
> I accept some of the great points made so far regarding benefits or the need to ward off thyroid wynd down but I don't get this one mate = eat do loads of cardio just to eat a bit more food.
> 
> I have lost a lot of weight (circa 4 stone)- many times just by diet restrictions but I would not say my condition was great after it


A glen said thats all well and good if ure on the heavier side and can eat 3000 cals and loose weight.

I myself have to drop to 2500 then 2200. i would rather be in 2500 and start adding cardio than drop to 2200 then 2000 mate.


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

LOL I once dropped to 1600 per day for weeks and got all my ribs to show but that was when I was totally clueless instead of just a bit clueless


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

For me personally low carb > than higher carbs plus cardio, by a long way. However everyone is different and I am not training for a show, just to maintain sub 10% subq fat.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Can we get away from the statement that you need a certain number of calories a day?

This is meaningless. 2,500 cals of what: all protein? All fats? All carbs? Or a mix?

The fact is you cannot calculate with any degree of certainty how many calories you need each day as it will vary quite markedly, depending on your daily routine, workout intensity and even the weather temperature.

If you keep eating the same number of calories a day, and this happens to be a slight average excess over your needs, you'll gradually get porkier.

And conversely, if it's a slight deficit, you'll gradually lose flab but may lack energy.

The easiest way to control your fat storage is through your carb intake: just to look in the mirror...


----------



## hilly (Jan 19, 2008)

Prodiver said:


> Can we get away from the statement that you need a certain number of calories a day?
> 
> This is meaningless. 2,500 cals of what: all protein? All fats? All carbs? Or a mix?
> 
> ...


I think when people mention cals they are still meaining pro/carbs and fats or atleast i am. i work my totals out on these but still work out the total cals as the comp does it for me.

at the end of the day it is an easy way for people to track there totals and is how many get in awesome shape for bodybuilding shows and is how millions monitor there daily intakes and live healthy lives so it cnt be argued it works pro.

your theories and methods altho im a big believer of leave alot up in the air for most and to much freedom. alot need a set plan of some form


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

Prodiver said:


> Can we get away from the statement that you need a certain number of calories a day?
> 
> This is meaningless. 2,500 cals of what: all protein? All fats? All carbs? Or a mix?
> 
> ...


LOL - carbs dont make you fat - calories do, I have got lean on low carbs, got lean on low fat - bottom line was kcals and the way you consume those are via eating carbs, fats,protein which are contained within foods

as i stated in a thread (which i was deeply hurt no one responded to) how comes with the move towards lower carbs these days Pro bodybuilders lack hardness compared to the lower fat days of the early nineties?


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

glen danbury said:


> LOL - carbs dont make you fat - calories do, I have got lean on low carbs, got lean on low fat - bottom line was kcals and the way you consume those are via eating carbs, fats,protein which are contained within foods
> 
> as i stated in a thread (which i was deeply hurt no one responded to) how comes with the move towards lower carbs these days Pro bodybuilders lack hardness compared to the lower fat days of the early nineties?


yes but I think Paddy means all calories are not equal - I for one agree with this.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

hilly said:


> ...
> 
> at the end of the day it is an easy way for people to track there totals and is how many get in awesome shape for bodybuilding shows and is how millions monitor there daily intakes and live healthy lives so it cnt be argued it works pro....


My point is that counting calories is fine for guys in near-competition shape, when small known adjustments make real differences, but it clearly doesn't work for the majority of would-be bodybuilders, or they wouldn't be constantly writing on here for more advice.

An awful lot of guys are eating exactly the supposed right amount or percentages of calories every day yet not gaining lean muscle, because they're eating too little protein and fat and too many carbs.

And dropping the carbs to an arbitrary percentage won't work, as their carb needs will vary every day and a fixed carb intake may still be in excess or deficit.


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

Prodiver said:


> My point is that counting calories is fine for guys in near-competition shape, when small known adjustments make real differences, but it clearly doesn't work for the majority of would-be bodybuilders, or they wouldn't be constantly writing on here for more advice.
> 
> An awful lot of guys are eating exactly the supposed right amount or percentages of calories every day yet not gaining lean muscle, because they're eating too little protein and fat and too many carbs.
> 
> And dropping the carbs to an arbitrary percentage won't work, as their carb needs will vary every day and a fixed carb intake may still be in excess or deficit.


so what your stating is cutting carbs is an idiot proof way of controlling kcal intake as trying to track kcals eludes most people - this I would agree with but its still calorie manipulation at the end of the day


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

glen danbury said:


> LOL - *carbs dont make you fat - calories do,* ...
> 
> as i stated in a thread (which i was deeply hurt no one responded to) how comes with the move towards lower carbs these days Pro bodybuilders lack hardness compared to the lower fat days of the early nineties?


Of course any excess of calories will be stored as fat, Glen, but carbs do make you fatter quicker than fat or protein. Read Dtlv's posts.

I haven't noticed bodybuilders being particularly less hard. I do think today they're probably less hard than in the 60s and 70s when I was young, because of the more recent fad for bulking and cutting - think of Franco Columbu, who was always lean and never bulked.

Steak, eggs and milk were the main bodybuilding foods then. The only popular supplement was liver tablets. Protein shakes were hardly known...


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

i think there was a peak of comp condition - 70's where still not rock hard, then in late eighties through to nineties they got very hard (gaspari,yates, munzer) and again they have gotten slightly softer again

maybe its the drugs and its all about the diuretics etc they used around then.

I know all the science relating to thermic effect of food, hormonal milieu following carb ingestion etc etc

but look at the most recent UKBFF finals and one of the hardest on stage was a low fat follower in lee williams


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Really enjoying this thread!

It's great to hear differing opinions from guys that clearly know their stuff. As I'm looking to drop some fat at the moment I'll keep a close eye on it.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

I always find these debates a bit odd as i find myself agreeing with points on both sides of the discussion... my take on how calories and macros interplay is this:

Your macro ratios will effect your base metabolic rate, and so affect how many calories that are effectively available for activity and storage etc, but this effect is at the end of the day limited, and once accounted for it then does effectively become about calories in vs calories out.

From what I've read, and what sense of it I can make, the metabolic advantage of a low carb diet for a decent sized bloke is estimated at, and can be well represented as, the equivalent of burning between 90 and 250 kcals extra per day (depending on which study you read and how the data is interpreted statistically). Should be pointed out also that some studies see the difference as far less or even not worth mentioning.

Ninety - 250kcals doesn't sound a lot, but works out at between 10 and 25lbs per year.

You could argue though also that higher carb diets allow more sustained endurance exercise performance, and also more sustained higher intensity performance in the 70% VO2max ish intensity range, which would allow greater fat burning potential from exercise which if performed regularly enough could match this metabolic difference.

All in all I think the best cutting/weight loss plan is always going to be the one that suits the individual best... both primarily focusing on calorie restriction and focusing primarily on macro manipulation are effective strategies even if different in approach, so do whatever you find easiest to stick to and works best for you with all the factors in your life that only you know about.

Don't be dogmatic, be practical


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

but alot of the metabolic advantage yopu mention relates to the amount of protein within the diet which as bodybuilders we all keep reasonably high anyway - its just the energy provider whether you choose carbs or fats as your energy source

personally I find a happy medium with a mixed diet but find it funny when people assign fat gain to oen or another nutrient when IMO the bottom line is kcals


----------



## martin brown (Dec 31, 2008)

glen danbury said:


> but alot of the metabolic advantage yopu mention relates to the amount of protein within the diet which as bodybuilders we all keep reasonably high anyway - its just the energy provider whether you choose carbs or fats as your energy source
> 
> personally I find a happy medium with a mixed diet but find it funny when people assign fat gain to oen or another nutrient when IMO the bottom line is kcals


Agreed. Low carb is a fashion thing. Perhaps it was brought about by the mass surge in processed carbs over the last two decades that caused us to get fat. This has lead to blurred vision - carbs never made us fat - excessive processed carbs did. There is a big difference.

Plenty of people get in great shape on moderate/high carb (macro wise) diets. Many, many of them do it with no fasted cardio, no drugs and no high protein diets either.


----------



## ste247 (Mar 18, 2008)

glen danbury said:


> but alot of the metabolic advantage yopu mention relates to the amount of protein within the diet which as bodybuilders we all keep reasonably high anyway - its just the energy provider whether you choose carbs or fats as your energy source
> 
> personally I find a happy medium with a mixed diet but find it funny when people assign fat gain to oen or another nutrient when IMO the bottom line is kcals


 agreed, work out your bmr, find out how many cals you should be eating to lose 2 lbs a week, then choose your energy source be it fat carbs or both, have your required amount of protien then start ye diet then hay presto you lose fat, when you stop losing fat add cardio....who ever thinks carbs make you hold more fat than protien or fat is a dumb ass imo its calories its not fukin rocket sciance is basic stuff this lol.....



martin brown said:


> Agreed. Low carb is a fashion thing. Perhaps it was brought about by the mass surge in processed carbs over the last two decades that caused us to get fat. This has lead to blurred vision - carbs never made us fat - excessive processed carbs did. There is a big difference.
> 
> Plenty of people get in great shape on moderate/high carb (macro wise) diets. Many, many of them do it with no fasted cardio, no drugs and no high protein diets either.


 low carbs and low fat will give you exactly the same results with the same amount of cals in each diet FACT.....low carbs is just a fashion thing i agree.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

glen danbury said:


> but alot of the metabolic advantage yopu mention relates to the amount of protein within the diet which as bodybuilders we all keep reasonably high anyway - its just the energy provider whether you choose carbs or fats as your energy source
> 
> personally I find a happy medium with a mixed diet but find it funny when people assign fat gain to oen or another nutrient when IMO the bottom line is kcals





martin brown said:


> Agreed. Low carb is a fashion thing. Perhaps it was brought about by the mass surge in processed carbs over the last two decades that caused us to get fat. This has lead to blurred vision - carbs never made us fat - excessive processed carbs did. There is a big difference.
> 
> Plenty of people get in great shape on moderate/high carb (macro wise) diets. Many, many of them do it with no fasted cardio, no drugs and no high protein diets either.


Absolutely... definitely agree with those points. I have to admit being very against the low carb view/metabolic advantage for quite a while as personally I do better with a moderate but clean carb content of diet, and have no probs at all losing a bit of flab with just focusing on a modest calorie reduction and extra exercise. Others do much better on it though, and the science, while not completely figured out, is pretty solid and that can't be ignored.

I think what makes the difference between which approach works best for the individual is often their previous history with body fat retention... many peolpe who have been significantly overweight have a slightly hampered ability to deal with glucose and insulin etc (plenty of genetic factors that play into it) and for them a lower carb approach seems to work best.

For those who have always been relatively lean and seem to tolerate carbs well, just working on calorie manipulation in the main works perfectly.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Be practical? Absolutely!

And this is why controlling carbs works so well for the great majority of would-be bodybuilders.

Calculating your BMR and trying to determine your daily calorie requirements are inherently inaccuarate, as your daily needs change markedly.

Also, any percentage split between protein fats and carbs is totally arbitrary.

So the easiest way to ensure optimum nutrition is first to eat enough protein.

Then the problem of how much carbs vs. fat to eat is solved by not counting the fat, but controlling only your carbs to avoid getting porky or to lose flab, while still gaining lean muscle.

All I can do is state that again and again I've seen this approach work extremely well for guys wanting to grow without resorting to confusing calculations and failing to maintain exact macros every day.

They also find that they can eat anything they like, maintain growth and energy, and yet keep the flab at bay.

There's absolutely no doubt that controlling carbs changes quickly day by day the storage especially of subcutaneous fat, while eating reasonable amounts of fats prevents hunger and lack of long term energy.


----------



## maccer (Jul 11, 2007)

Dtlv74 said:


> .
> 
> For those who have always been relatively lean and seem to tolerate carbs well, just working on calorie manipulation in the main works perfectly.


maybe because they have a higher degree of insulin sensitivity - low carb diet keep insulin levels more stable. Everyone is indeed different though, there was a guy in my old gym that had striated glutes (black guy) who would eat mars bar in between sets at the start of hi work out - that would make me feel hypo personally as I can't handle the carbs that well.


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

an excellent summary of the data by jamie hale here - again bottom line kcals

:laugh:

*Low Carb Dogma**<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>*

By <o></o>

Jamie Hale<o></o><o> </o>

Low carb diet enthusiasts claim their diet is supreme to other methods. They claim their diet offers a metabolic advantage-"metabolic advantages that will allow overweight individuals to eat as many or more calories as they were eating before starting the diet yet still lose pounds and inches" (Atkins, 1992). In addition, advocates claim that the overproduction of insulin stimulated by high CHO intake is the cause of obesity. Others claim that low carb diets result in weight loss, fat loss, improved body composition, and improved health. Simply put, according to many low carb advocates, low carb dieting is superior to other forms of dieting.<o></o>

Low carb diets have been shown to improve the conditions previously mentioned, but isn't it true that other diets offer some of the same benefits? And in some cases, aren't low carb diets successful due to calorie manipulation, not some metabolic advantage? Or are low carb diets simply the way to go across the board?<o></o>

*Low carbs and weight loss*<o></o>

Studies consistently show that weight loss is primarily determined by caloric intake, not diet composition (Hill, 1993). In all cases, individuals on high fat, low CHO diets lose weight because they consume fewer calories (Freedman, 2001). Alford and colleagues (1990) manipulated CHO content of low calorie diets (1200 kcal/d) to determine the possible effects on body weight and body fat reduction over ten weeks. Women in each diet group consumed a low, medium, or high CHO diet. The low CHO diet was 15-25 percent CHO (75 g/d) (30 percent protein, 45 percent fat), the moderate CHO diet was 45 percent CHO (10 percent protein, 35 percent fat), and the high CHO diet was 75 percent CHO (15 percent protein, 10 percent fat).<o></o>

Weight loss occurred in all groups, but there was no significant difference in weight loss among the groups. Based on underwater weighing, the percentage of body fat lost was similar among the groups. Alford and colleagues concluded that "there is no statistically significant effect derived in an overweight adult female population from manipulation of percentage of CHO in a 1200-kcal diet. Weight loss is the result of reduction in caloric intake in proportion to caloric requirements" (Freedman, 2001).<o></o>

Golay and colleagues (1996) followed 43 obese patients for six weeks, who received a low cal diet (1000 kcal) and participated in a structured, multidisciplinary program that included physical activity (2 h/d), nutritional education, and behavioral modification. The diet contained either 15 percent CHO (37.5 g) or 45 percent CHO. The protein content of the diets was similar (approximately 30 percent) and fat made up the difference. After six weeks, there was no significant difference in weight loss between the different diet groups. Significant and similar decreases in total body fat and waist-to-hip ratios were seen in both groups. In another study, Wing and colleagues (1995) confined 21 severely obese women to a metabolic ward for 31 days. They were randomly assigned to a non-ketogenic or ketogenic (10 g CHO) liquid formula diet (600 kcals) for 28 days. At the end of the study, weight losses were similar.<o></o>

A portion of weight loss in the early stages of low carb dieting is due to water losses (Bell, 1969; Van Itallie, 1975). However, the majority of weight loss in the early stages of a mixed diet is primarily due to loss in body fat (Yang and Van Itallie, 1976). Other studies support this finding. Losses of protein and fat are about the same when following a ketogenic or isocaloric, non-ketogenic diet (Golay, 1996).<o></o>

"In the short-term, low CHO ketogenic diets cause a greater loss of body water than body fat" (Freedman, 2001). "Low CHO diets are high in fat, especially saturated fat, and cholesterol. They are also high in protein (mainly animal) and provide lower than recommended intakes of vitamin E, vitamin A, thiamin, vitamin B6, folate, calcium, magnesium, iron, potassium, and dietary fiber" (Freedman, 2001). In these instances, supplementation is required for proper nutrition.<o></o>

*Do low carbohydrate diets decrease hunger?*<o></o>

Low carb advocates claim that no hunger is experienced when following a low carb diet. Various studies support this claim. However, not all studies do. Baron and colleagues (1986) found similar complaints of hunger in low CHO and low fat dieters. Rosen and colleagues (1985) found no support for the claim that a minimal CHO, protein supplemented fast decreased appetite in comparison with an isocaloric CHO containing diet that minimized ketosis. The idea that eating an ad lib low carb diet leads to decreased calorie consumption in everyone is a logical fallacy-hasty generalization.<o></o>

*Do other diets decrease hunger?*<o></o>

Studies indicate subjects consuming an ad lib, low fat diet don't complain of hunger but complain there is too much food (Freedman 2001). Siggaard (1996) reported a high degree of satisfaction when Danish workers consumed a low fat, ad lib diet.<o></o>

"Stubbs et al. (1995) provided normal weight male subjects ad libitum access to one of three covertly manipulated diets: low fat (20 percent energy as fat, 67 percent as CHO), medium fat (40 percent energy as fat, 47 percent as CHO), or high fat (60 percent energy as fat, 27 percent as CHO). They reported that energy intake increased with percent fat and that lower fat, lower energy diets were more satiating than higher fat, higher energy diets" (Freedman, 2001).<o></o>

<o> </o>

*Is overproduction of insulin driven by CHO consumption the primary cause of obesity?*<o></o>

Carbohydrates and protein stimulate insulin release. Holt and colleagues (1997) found that "protein rich foods and bakery products (rich in fat and refined carbohydrates) elicited insulin responses that were disproportionately higher than their glycemic responses [blood sugar responses]."<o></o>

Golay and colleagues (1996) showed that subjects consuming 15 percent CHO had significantly lower insulin levels compared with those consuming 45 percent CHO, yet there was no difference in weight loss between the groups. "Grey and Kipnis [1971] studied ten obese patients who were fed hypocaloric (1500 kcal/d) liquid formula diets containing either 72 percent or 0 percent CHO for four weeks before switching to the other diet. A significant reduction in basal plasma insulin levels was noted when subjects ingested the hypocaloric formula devoid of CHO. Refeeding the hypocaloric, high CHO formula resulted in a marked increase in the basal plasma insulin. However, patients lost 0.75-2.0 kg/week irrespective of caloric distribution" (Freedman, 2001).<o></o>

This is what nutritionist and author, Anthony Colpo, had to say (Colpo, 2007):<o></o>

"[T]ake a close look at the studies in which the low carb diet caused greater reductions in insulin. Despite the marked differences in insulin output, there was no difference in weight or fat loss! Among the metabolic ward studies, the trials by Grey and Kipnis, Golay et al, Miya****a et al, and Stimson et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the isocaloric, low carb diets-but no difference in fat loss &#8230; Among the free-living studies, Golay et al, Torbay et al, Noakes et al, and Meckling et al all found greater reductions in insulin on the low carb diets-but again, no difference in fat loss&#8230; The participants in these free living studies were given dietary advice intended to make the high and low carbs isocaloric. If insulin and not calories was the key factor in fat loss, then there should have been a clear and decisive advantage to the lower carb group every single time. There wasn't. The reason for this is that the 'insulin makes you fat' theory is rubbish. It is calories, not insulin, that determine whether or not you will lose fat."<o></o>

"Insulin, in addition to its effects in the central nervous system to inhibit food intake, acts in the periphery to ensure the efficient storage of incoming nutrients. The role for insulin in the synthesis and storage of fat has obscured its important effects in the central nervous system where it acts to prevent weight gain and has led to the misconception that insulin causes obesity [schwartz 2000]. It has recently been shown that selective genetic disruption of insulin signaling in the brain leads to increased food intake and obesity in animals [bruning et al. 2000], demonstrating that intact insulin signaling in the central nervous system is required for normal body weight regulation" (Freedman, 2001).<o></o>

Furthermore, insulin plays an indirect role in body regulation through leptin stimulation. Both of these hormones are transported in the central nervous system where they may interact with neuropeptides that affect food intake. Decreased leptin levels have been shown to be related to increased hunger sensations (Keim, 1998). Freedman and colleagues (2001) said, "Increased insulin secretion has been suggested to protect against weight gain in humans [schwartz 1995]. Because insulin also stimulates leptin production, which acts centrally to reduce energy intake and increase energy expenditure, decreased insulin and leptin production during the consumption of high fat diets could help contribute to the obesity promoting effects of dietary fat [Astrup, 2000]."<o></o>

*Do other diets affect health parameters?*<o></o>

The following excerpts are taken from "Popular Diets: A Scientific Review" (Freedman, 2001).<o></o>

"Blood lipid levels (e.g. total cholesterol [TC], low density lipoprotein [LDL], high density lipoprotein [HDL] and triglycerides [TGs]) decrease as body weight decreases [Yu-poth, 1999]. Moderate fat, balanced nutrient, reduction diets reduce LDL cholesterol and normalize the ratio of HDL/TC."<o></o>

"Plasma TG levels also decrease with weight loss. Although they increase in response to short-term consumption of a VLF, high CHO diet [Lichtenstein & Van Horn, 1998], the type of CHO consumed must be considered. High-fiber foods, including vegetables and legumes, do not lead to hypertriglyceridemia [<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">Anderson</st1lace></st1:City>, 1980] and may easily be incorporated into moderate fat, balanced nutrient, reduction diets to help normalize plasma TG levels."<o></o>

"Energy restriction independent of diet composition improves glycemic control."<o></o>

In addition, when body weight decreases so do insulin and leptin levels. Blood pressure drops with weight loss, regardless of diet composition. Sports nutritionist, Alan Aragon, had this to say:<o></o>

"A key point that must be made is that the research is not sufficient grounds to be dogmatic about low carbing in the first place. On the whole, studies do not match protein intakes between diets. Adequate protein intakes have multiple advantages (i.e. LBM support, satiety, thermic effect), and they simply end up being compared to inadequate protein intakes. Thus, it isn't lower carb intake per se that imparts any advantage. It's the higher protein intake. Once you match protein intake between diets, the one with more carbs is actually the one with the potential for a slight metabolic advantage.<o></o>

Furthermore, the majority of the research compares dietary extremes (high carb/low fat/low protein versus low carb/high fat/moderate protein). The funny part is the majority of long-term trials (12 months or more) still fail to show a significant weight loss difference. Note that these trials use the sedentary obese, so in the fit population, any weight loss differences would be even more miniscule. Once again, keep in mind that the lack of significant difference in weight loss is seen despite unequal protein intakes between treatments.<o></o>

There's a large middle ground here that tends to get ignored by the 'metabolic advantage' folks, who are incorrect to begin with. It's always 'either or' for them when in fact individual carbohydrate demands vary widely. For some folks, low carb is warranted. For others, it isn't. It always amazes me how hard that concept is to grasp for low carb absolutists.<o></o>

What I find to be a common thread among people who deny that individual carbohydrate requirements vary widely is a lack of client experience, particularly with different types of athletes. The minute someone says that everyone should severely restrict carbohydrate, it's obvious that you're dealing with a cherry-picking, low carb zealot who is unfamiliar with the totality of research evidence and has limited field experience."<o></o>

*Conclusion*<o></o>

A low carb diet isn't necessarily the best diet. Research has found low carb diets to be successful for many people, but other diets have also proven successful. This article isn't meant to suggest that low carb dieting is inferior or bad. It is meant to dispel some of the common dogma often perpetuated by low carb dogmatists. The idea that low carb dieting offers unique benefits that can't be acquired by other diets is true in some cases (i.e. possibly treatment for some forms of cancer and specific neurodegenarative disorders). However, the idea of low carb diets being the panacea of diets is false.<o></o>

This was a short review of some of the scientific data concerning low carb dieting. To reiterate, my intent was not to provide an in-depth discussion of the various issues surrounding dieting but to give readers a brief glimpse of some of the popular misconceptions associated with low carb dieting. There is a plethora of scientific literature showing the benefits of low carb dieting. There is also a plethora of data showing benefits from other types of diets. Which is better? It depends.<o></o>

*References *<o></o>



Alford BB, et al. (1990) The effects of variation in carbohydrate, protein, and fat content of the diet upon weight loss, blood values, and nutrient intake of adult obese women. J AM Diet Assoc 90:534-40.<o></o>



Atkins RC (1992) Dr. Atkins Diet Revolution. <st1:State w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">New York</st1lace></st1:State>: Avon Books, Inc.<o></o>



Baron JA, et al. (1986) A randomized controlled trial of low carbohydrate and low fat/high fiber diets for weight loss. AM J Public Health 76:1293-6.<o></o>



Bell JD, et al. (1969) Ketosis, weight loss, uric acid, and nitrogen balance in obese women fed single nutrients at low calorie levels. Metabolism 18:193-208.<o></o>



Colpo A (2007) They're All Mad. Anthony Colpo.<o></o>



Freedman MR, et al. (2001) Popular Diets A Scientific Review. Obesity Research 9(1).<o></o>



Golay A, et al. (1996) Weight-loss with low or high carbohydrate diet? Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 20:1067-72.<o></o>



Golay A, et al. (1996) Similar weight loss with low or high carbohydrate diets. Am J Clin Nutr 63:174-8.<o></o>



Hill JO, et al. (1993) Obesity treatment: can diet composition play a role? Ann Intern Med 119:694-7.<o></o>



Holt S, et al. (1997) The insulin demand generated by 1000-kJ portions of common foods. AM J Clin Nutr 66:1264-76.<o></o>



Keim NL, et al. (1998) Relation between circulating Leptin concentrations and appetite during a prolonged, moderate energy deficit in women. Am J Clin Nutr 68:794-801.<o></o>



Rosen JC, et al. (1985) Mood and appetite during minimal-carbohydrate and carbohydrate-supplemented hypocaloric diets. AM J Clin Nutr 42:371-9.<o></o>



Siggaard R, et al. (1996) Weight loss during 12 weeks carbohydrate-rich diet in overweight and normal-weight subjects at a Danish work site. Obes Res 4:347-56.<o></o>



Stubbs RJ, et al. (1995) Covert manipulation of dietary fat and energy density: effect on substrate flux and food intake in men eating ad libitum. AM J Clin Nutr 62:316-29.<o></o>



Van Itallie TB, et al. (1975) Dietary Approaches to obesity: metabolic and appetitive considerations. In: Recent Advances in Obesity Research. <st1:City w:st="on"><st1lace w:st="on">London</st1lace></st1:City>: Newman Publishing, pg. 256-69.<o></o>



Wing RR, et al. (1995) Cognitive effects of ketogenic weight-reducing diets. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 19:811-6.<o></o>



Yang MU, Van Itallie TB (1976) Composition of weight loss during short term weight reduction. Metabolic responses of obese subjects to starvation and low-calorie ketogenic and non-ketogenic diets. J Clin Invest 58:722-30.<o></o>


----------



## whackedout (Sep 10, 2009)

Thanks for the article Glen, however I am a fan of the below quote, it is appropriate due to my short attention span :whistling:

"The length of this document defends it well against the risk of its being read."

Winston Churchill


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

whackedout said:


> Thanks for the article Glen, however I am a fan of the below quote, it is appropriate due to my short attention span :whistling:
> 
> "The length of this document defends it well against the risk of its being read."
> 
> Winston Churchill


ha ha - thats why at the top I put the one liner of - bottom line kcals :lol:


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

Please note, Glen, that I've never advocated a low carb diet, only a controlled carb diet, as it's the simplest way of controlling overall calorie intake without compromising nutrition and lean growth.


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Uriel said:


> Is there anyone who has reached a good condition or even a stage condition without CV?


I know personally of one - Gary Kieth.

But he works a very active job physically, so same thing really.

Hey Uriel - why not try an experiment - don't do anything particularly active other than your wieght sessions, and try and get into show nick just by eating it off.

Won't happen unless you are severly blessed with fat loss genetics


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> My point is that counting calories is fine for guys in near-competition shape, when small known adjustments make real differences, but it clearly doesn't work for the majority of would-be bodybuilders, or they wouldn't be constantly writing on here for more advice.


Null argument Pro - I have yet to see a recreational bber count things as much as a dedicated precontest bber who is on his game. So to say the counting calories doesn't work for these guys is incorrect, and not clear in the slightest - they arent doing it :lol:

Every bber I ahve had a little hand in helping from recreation gym goer to stage, has been shocked/surprised at how they need to eat, versus how they thought they needed to eat, or were eating before.

And regardless of your level, or current condition, I'll bet most bbers could benefit from analyisng what they eat daily for a couple of weeks, then checking some figures.

In most cases they won't be getting the protien they thought they were getting, and will be taking in way more fuel macros than they thought they were...

You ever been in good/stage condition Patrick? Not a personal attack - genuine transparent question.

Because knowing theoretically how to get there, and actually walking that path.... you see the differences first hand.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

Kcals are the bottom line definitely, and carbs themselves don't prevent weight loss. There can be metabolic advantage from manipulating amounts of them, but it's only significant enough to make a difference if you also reduce calories... and as discussed in that article, different levels of activity pretty much require a carb friendly diet for optimum performance so carb reduction may not at all be ideal for everyone.

If interested in the science of it, a review of metabolic advantage theory here - Thermodynamics of weight loss diets


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

rs007 said:


> ...
> 
> In most cases they won't be getting the protien they thought they were getting, and will be taking in way more fuel macros than they thought they were...


Absolutely! But how to determine practially how many calories a day a guy really needs..?



> You ever been in good/stage condition Patrick? Not a personal attack - genuine transparent question.
> 
> Because knowing theoretically how to get there, and actually walking that path.... you see the differences first hand.


When I was commercial diving I was super fit and fairly lean - had to be. Not stage shredded, but big, strong and lean. Of course comp prep dieting is a specialist area.

Most of the time I was living on dive ships or oil rigs where you could eat as much great free food as you like - dangerous!

I rapidly found I could easily have enough energy and stay lean by eating a lot of protein foods - lots of huge steaks, fresh fish - and not worrying about fat, but holding back on the carbs. Shame I missed out on so much free key lime pie and ice cream!  The huge variety of salads and fruit were good though...


----------



## Uriel (Oct 14, 2008)

rs007 said:


> Hey Uriel - why not try an experiment - don't do anything particularly active other than your wieght sessions, and try and get into show nick just by eating it off.
> 
> Won't happen unless you are severly blessed with fat loss genetics


Listen fuk face, if I wanted to hear the painful truth that years of avoiding the treadmill will end if I want to get on stage - I'd have pm'd you instead of this thread.......

I kind of dreaded that savage final truth....


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

ste247 said:


> agreed, work out your bmr, find out how many cals you should be eating to lose 2 lbs a week, then choose your energy source be it fat carbs or both, have your required amount of protien then start ye diet then hay presto you lose fat, when you stop losing fat add cardio....*who ever thinks carbs make you hold more fat than protien or fat is a dumb ass* imo its calories its not fukin rocket sciance is basic stuff this lol.....
> 
> low carbs and low fat will give you exactly the same results with the same amount of cals in each diet FACT.....low carbs is just a fashion thing i agree.


Why do you feel the need to insult?


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

Prodiver said:


> *Absolutely! But how to determine practially how many calories a day a guy **really** needs..?*
> 
> When I was commercial diving I was super fit and fairly lean - had to be. Not stage shredded, but big, strong and lean. Of course comp prep dieting is a specialist area.
> 
> ...


IMO most people are creatures of habit - as such its very easy to monitor bodyweight and have accurate food records - averaging their intake and comparing to bodyweight fluctations you can get a pretty close inidcation of what their average requirements are and then its a case of just looking at your day - if your doing something different work out the energy cost

when working with people if you give free reign i alwasy find the results are less than optimal - calculate the calorie needs and ensure people are hitting this and the results are usually way above that of free reign with just rough dietary guidance


----------



## ste247 (Mar 18, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> Why do you feel the need to insult?


 that comment wasnt aimed at anyone inparticular if it was then i would have stated there name....so therefore it wasnt an insult...


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

What about the timing of carbs ie there is a general rule of thumb the earlier you stop eating

carbs in the day, the better it is for fat loss, is this bllx??

To try and get a general thesis, what are the majority saying

Get enough protein and choose your energy source carbs/fats

Something that puzzles me a little

Did 8 weeks of reducing cals and cardio (at least 5 hrs pwk) for holiday, ate normally on holiday

for 2 weeks, came back as lean if not leaner than when I went, put on 3lbs as well with just

1 workout in that 2 weeks??

I'm not sure there's an answer to any of this, obviously history plays its part as what ppl

have done for years obviously works, but we are all individual and I think Insulin sensitivity

is probably a major factor in what and what doesn't work for each of us regarding

carbs as an energy source.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

glen danbury said:


> ...
> 
> when working with people if you give free reign i alwasy find the results are less than optimal - calculate the calorie needs and ensure people are hitting this and the results are usually way above that of free reign with just rough dietary guidance


Less than optimal, I agree.

But IME few can actually calculate anything accurately, and rarely eat right to hit the numbers.

That's why I encourage guys to look in the mirror and control their carbs. And it invariably brings good results.


----------



## TH0R (Aug 15, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> Less than optimal, I agree.
> 
> But IME few can actually calculate anything accurately, and rarely eat right to hit the numbers.
> 
> That's why I encourage guys to look in the mirror and control their carbs. And it invariably brings good results.


How do you control carbs without counting what cals are made up of said carbs:confused1:


----------



## adesign (Jun 10, 2008)

Best thread I have read in a while! So according to one of the featured articles, the insulin spike minimization through low carb'in doesn't really affect the net weight loss (in the instance of the control group)? Or have I misread?


----------



## rs007 (May 28, 2007)

Prodiver said:


> That's why I encourage guys to look in the mirror and control their carbs. And it invariably brings good results.


Ultimately, all finer points aside, I can't disagree with that one bit and it is largely how I reccomend to go about things too


----------



## glen danbury (May 23, 2006)

adesign said:


> Best thread I have read in a while! So according to one of the featured articles, the insulin spike minimization through low carb'in doesn't really affect the net weight loss (in the instance of the control group)? Or have I misread?


pretty much

also look at studies such as this which sugests that fat oxidation doesnt change with carb intake post workout - all in all it would suggest that the insulin is what makes you fat is blown out of proportion - at least for specific times, active people and those who focus on large amounts of dietary protein IMO



Kimber NE et. Al 2003. Skeletal muscle fat and carbohydrate metabolism during recovery from
​
glycogen-depleting exercise in humans. J Physiol. 548(Pt 3):919-27.


----------



## Prodiver (Nov 14, 2008)

tel3563 said:


> How do you control carbs without counting what cals are made up of said carbs:confused1:


You don't need to count them.

To begin this approach, first make sure you're eating enough protein. This is easy to calculate from actual bodyweight, which will give you at least as much as you need.

Then don't worry about eating fats. Eat the fat on meat, real butter, milk, eggs, cheese, peanut butter, nuts, mayo, olive oil...

Now, because you're now likely to be getting rather more calories from fat, if you're porky initially cut your carbs down quite a lot.

If you're already fairly lean, cut your carbs just a little.

Eat salads and fruit, and for enough energy a little wholemeal bread, some potato, even a few chips - the fat won't hurt. But avoid eating quantities of pasta and rice for the sake of it.

You're less likely to feel hungry because protein and fats are more satiating than carbs.

Look in the mirror every day. If you get porkier, cut the carbs back a bit; if you lack energy, increase the carbs a bit.

It only takes a few days for changes to become apparent. It's easy just to up or down your carb foods a bit and no counting is necessary.

If you indulge in a cheat meal or an extra pudding occasionally - no problem. Just control your carbs day by day, week by week, and you can maintain your condition or shed flab while gaining lean mass.


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

When talking about fats eaten to go along side carbs, not many people realise that the type of fat can strongly influence how your body responds to carbohydrates...

Saturated fats, altered polyunsaturated fats like transfats, and excessive omega 6 polyunsaturated fats out of proportion to omega 3 poly's, significantly reduce insulin sensitivity and impair insulin dynamics and glucose tolerance when compared to getting the same number of fat calories from monounsaturated fats.

This effect is strong enough over time to impact on body composition and general health markers, and may contribute to difficultly losing bodyfat when dieting (need to check back to look for exact data on this).


----------

