# Eating below maintenance, getting fatter - WTF?



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Please can someone tell me where I'm going wrong in my calculations.

I'm 39, 6'4" and weigh 100kg.

I've been lifting on Starting Strength for 9 months and have put on 10kg of weight, but my waist line has gone from 34" to 38" and I'm noticeably fatter.

I decided to look at my numbers which are as follow.

Using the sticky on my thread I worked out maintenance at...

BMR = 2136

Activity multiplier x 1.55 (Moderately active) Desk job but lift 3 times a week.

Total calorie for maintenance - TDEE = 3,310

I then decided to look at my Macors which are very similar from day to day, the only difference from one day to the next is whether I have boiled eggs in the day, or some fish/check on a small bed of rice, and what meat I have with my two veg of an evening.

Yesterday's intake went like this...

Cereal Cal200 P7 C33 F4

Cereal milk Cal140 P11 c17 F4

2 Scoops Cal208 P42 C3 F4

3 boiled eggs 195 P17 C0 F13

2 pork chops Cal240 P26 C0 F14

mash Cal200 P4 C27 F8

peas Cal70 P4 C12 F0

banana Cal90 P1 C23 F0

pear Cal75 P1 C18 F0

2 scoops Cal208 P42 C3 F4

2 scoops Cal208 P42 C3 F4

13 x Tea - sugar Cal200 P0 C60 F0

13 x Tea - milk Cal500 P33 C47 F20

Totals 2536cals P230 C246 F75

Protein = 42%

Carbs = 44%

Fat = 14%

On a day where I'll have chicken/fish over a small bed of rice instead of 3 boiled eggs, the cals might go up 100-150, but the proportions stay about the same.

So, that has been pretty much my diet or very similar variants of it for the last 9 months.

In theory, I should now be very under weight as my maintenance is approx 3300, yet my intake is approx 2650 average, so 650 below maintenance.

That doesn't stack up with a 34" to a 38" waist.

Would it be fair to say the balance of protein, carbs and fat isn't way off the mark?

So, I'm steadily adding fat to my body, little by little, yet the figures suggest I should be loosing fat at a steady rate.

Where's the anomaly?

My intake is strict and honest - no cheating, I don't drink at all, no curry, Chinese, sweets, cakes, crisps, pastries or other 'junk'. I do eat pretty clean.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## seandog69 (Mar 8, 2013)

simple answer is your TDEE is off or your calculations on your intake are

either way, just reduce a week at a time til you have the desired weight loss per week

and dont forget when you lose weight the TDEE drops slightly too


----------



## xpower (Jul 28, 2009)

try working it out @ lean bodyweight


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

It' not so much that you're going wrong somewhere with your calculations, more that you are crediting them with far more accuracy than they can really have. No BMR or TDEE calc is ever going to be anything more than a rough guide, there just too many variables. So bottom line, if you are putting on weight you are eating above maintenance, end of.

As an aside, pumping iron 3 times a week does not make a desk jockey "moderately active".


----------



## Dan94 (Dec 29, 2013)

eat less


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Ian_Montrose said:


> It' not so much that you're going wrong somewhere with your calculations, more that you are crediting them with far more accuracy than they can really have. No BMR or TDEE calc is ever going to be anything more than a rough guide, there just too many variables. So bottom line, if you are putting on weight you are eating above maintenance, end of.
> 
> As an aside, pumping iron 3 times a week does not make a desk jockey "moderately active".


Thanks for the replies everyone.

I'm told that for my body weight I want to be eating 1g protein per lb of weight which for me is 220g of protein which I'm only just at currently.

I'm told that as a natty, and a no spring chicken natty, too, that I need a decent amount of fat to keep my test levels up, so I guess I don't want to cut the fats back either, as they're only 14% as it is.

Therefore, am I correct in saying that the only place left to cut is the carbs?


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

The Sweeney said:


> Thanks for the replies everyone.
> 
> I'm told that for my body weight I want to be eating 1g protein per lb of weight which for me is 220g of protein which I'm only just at currently.
> 
> ...


Cereal for breakfast would be my guess - instant insulin spike/no more fat burning - they saying 'earn your carbs' when it comes to cutting.


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

cut carbs I would say or atleast take them after/around your workout - from what i've seen - proteins and fats stay the same - carbs move up and down.


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

i'm 13 stone 4 now - i'm running 2200 on a cut - but i'm only ingesting 50grams of carbs currently per day. i'm due a refeed today tho thankfully which i add 20% of my total to carbs. but i'm training 6 days


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

I'm 14st 11 and can bulk on 2500 cals a day.. It's not an exact science. Just cut back on calories by 300 a day see what happens and adjust accordingly


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Thanks chaps - I'll maybe kill the cereal and have scrambled eggs or something instead and reduce the portion size of my veg with dinner and rice with my lunch etc and see how I get one.

I'm also switching from SS to a hypertrophy based routine which will hopefully increase the general level of activity.


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

One thing I've seen before mate is before cutting calories - increase intensity (HIIT) train more.. etc - before cutting calories. I don't know how long your cuts going to be and I'm not in amazing shape myself but i've felt I hold more muscle mass this way.


----------



## Big Man 123 (Aug 1, 2013)

The Sweeney said:


> I'm told that as a natty, and a no spring chicken natty, too, that I need a decent amount of fat to keep my test levels up


That's broscience, you don't need fats to produce testosterone, eating a lot of fat won't make you produce more testosterone.

Testosterone is made of cholesterol, not fats perse, you can stuff your mouth with 100 grams of olive oil + 100 grams of coconut oil and you will get 200 grams of fats with 1800 calories and CERO cholesterol, you won't produce any testosterone out of that and you will get fat as carbs are the main source of energy for the body, not fats.

2 eggs a day have 350+ mg's of cholesterol, that's all you need to produce testosterone at your peak and they have only 9 grams of fats.

As for your problem, just eat a little less mate.

Cheers.


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

I use alot of olive oil and coconut oil myself for calorie boosting swell as the MCT in coconut oil for energy pre-workout.

natty you wanna be reducing cortasol, zinc etc before bed. all that good stuff. not just natty and assisted.

T NATION | Saturated Fat: Killer or Testosterone Booster?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

@Big Man 123

Do you know of any studies that show testosterone levels correlate with cholesterol intake but not total fat levels? I've seen studies showing the latter, but they include differences in cholesterol and what you say does make a lot of sense.

Personally I'd keep fat intake in the 20-35% range, since this is what is currently recommended for general health (see here*).

*I have a copy of this full paper but can't quickly find the link where I got it from - I'll try to find it later as it is interesting (if you care about fats!)


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I'm surprised you are gaining weight if you truly are eating about 2500 kcal per day. Looking quickly at your day's food I wondered about the following FWIW:



The Sweeney said:


> 2 pork chops Cal240 P26 C0 F14


Are you sure this is right? That sounds more like the data for one chop, not two.



> banana Cal90 P1 C23 F0


Thats a fairly small banana.



> 13 x Tea - sugar Cal200 P0 C60 F0
> 
> 13 x Tea - milk Cal500 P33 C47 F20


How accurate do you think these are? Given how many cups of tea you have, it you end up using more milk and sugar each time this will add up...


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'm surprised you are gaining weight if you truly are eating about 2500 kcal per day. Looking quickly at your day's food I wondered about the following FWIW:
> 
> Are you sure this is right? That sounds more like the data for one chop, not two.
> 
> ...


Yeah, pretty accurate, I reckon.

Are you saying I have a small banana? :lol:

Pretty sure for a 3oz pork chop x 2 that was correct.

Anyhoo.... is fruit the work of the Devil?

Do I need some carbs at breakfast to get me going, for example would scrambled eggs on one slice of toast be ok? It's just that I feel sluggish without at least some sort of carbs first thing?


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

todai said:


> One thing I've seen before mate is before cutting calories - increase intensity (HIIT) train more.. etc - before cutting calories. I don't know how long your cuts going to be and I'm not in amazing shape myself but i've felt I hold more muscle mass this way.


I'm not thinking of it as a cut, I'm trying to stop myself getting any fatter, as I'm steadily getting fatter little by little - it'll be a permanent adjustment, not a temporary cut.

But yes, my new hypertrophy routine will be much more intense than the starting strength routine with it's 3-5 mins between each set etc.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The Sweeney said:


> Pretty sure for a 3oz pork chop x 2 that was correct.


3 oz is considerably smaller than I was picturing when you said chop!



> Anyhoo.... is fruit the work of the Devil?


Of course not, but it is calories. I was looking for ways you may be underestimating what you are eating before just telling you to eat less!



> Do I need some carbs at breakfast to get me going, for example would scrambled eggs on one slice of toast be ok? It's just that I feel sluggish without at least some sort of carbs first thing?


Have carbs whenever you want them as far as I'm concerned, I do, even when cutting. Plenty will disagree of course!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Actually, are you talking 3 oz raw or cooked weight?


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Actually, are you talking 3 oz raw or cooked weight?


Off the bone and about the size of the palm of your hand and the thickness of an oven chip.... :lol:

Didn't weigh it.

Two big gammon steaks tonight, and a big roast beef joint out to defrost for tomorrow.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

If you're putting on fat, you're eating over maintenance mate. A calculator can only give you an estimate for a person with an average metabolism. Best to use them as a starting point and adjust based on results.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

I never count anything, I just look in the mirror and eat more or less.


----------



## seandog69 (Mar 8, 2013)

i look in the mirror *THEN* i eat more, beacuse i like food and being fat is fun


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

In terms of changes to make to the diet I'd be tempted to drop one or two of the scoops of (I assume) whey, and see how you get on with this coupled with your change to some higher volume training.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Big Man 123 said:


> 2 eggs a day have 350+ mg's of cholesterol, that's all you need to produce testosterone at your peak and they have only 9 grams of fats.


Wrong

The cholesterol that you eat in food is mainly digested, and the little that gets past the liver has no significant impact on your blood cholesterol levels. The cholesterol in your body is synthesised by your body cells, and whatever cholesterol you eat that gets into your system simply causes your body to make a bit less. High cholesterol levels are a problem of regulation, not consumption. If this were not the case, vegans would all die from lack of cholesterol.

There is a positive correlation between consumption of *saturated *fat and testosterone levels which has been demonstrated in many different studies. It's not a very strong correlation though

Testosterone and cortisol in relationship to dietary nutrients and resistance exercise | Journal of Applied Physiology

View attachment 167415


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> In terms of changes to make to the diet I'd be tempted to drop one or two of the scoops of (I assume) whey, and see how you get on with this coupled with your change to some higher volume training.


Ad replace with food?

I'm told I want to be eating 1g / lb of body weight , so for me that's 220g of protein a day - I need 6 scoops to do that, otherwise I'll be eating eggs, tuna and chicken all day and eating even more calories than I am, as the whey is a great high protein / low calorie source.

??


----------



## damn shame (Jan 2, 2015)

Eat less.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The Sweeney said:


> Ad replace with food?
> 
> I'm told I want to be eating 1g / lb of body weight , so for me that's 220g of protein a day - I need 6 scoops to do that, otherwise I'll be eating eggs, tuna and chicken all day and eating even more calories than I am, as the whey is a great high protein / low calorie source.
> 
> ??


No, replace with nothing. I was looking for a way to reduce your total calories (which is what you need to do). My thinking was that you're currently getting almost a quarter of your daily calories from whey, which is fairly high. I'd normally go with the 1g/lb figure, but it is likely overkill, and whatever proportion of your 100 kg that is gained fat (sorry) won't need supporting with more protein. Maybe drop one scoop of whey and 25g of carbs from somewhere? I wouldn't drop fats because as I posted above you're already eating less than I'd normally go for. Just a suggestion, I'm not claiming any infallable knowledge that means this is definitely the way to go!

I would suggest reducing the sugar in tea but I'm pretty sure you've pointed out in the past this is non-negotiable?

I do think you'll find switching to a higher volume training programme will have an effect BTW. Are you still doing boxing training as well?

Edit: as a side note from a general health point of view, your diet looks fairly low in fibre.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> No, replace with nothing. I was looking for a way to reduce your total calories (which is what you need to do). My thinking was that you're currently getting almost a quarter of your daily calories from whey, which is fairly high. I'd normally go with the 1g/lb figure, but it is likely overkill, and whatever proportion of your 100 kg that is gained fat (sorry) won't need supporting with more protein. Maybe drop one scoop of whey and 25g of carbs from somewhere? I wouldn't drop fats because as I posted above you're already eating less than I'd normally go for. Just a suggestion, I'm not claiming any infallable knowledge that means this is definitely the way to go!
> 
> I would suggest reducing the sugar in tea but I'm pretty sure you've pointed out in the past this is non-negotiable?
> 
> ...


Cheers fella.

Sugar in tea is carved in granite.

Fibre - good thought - fibre in cereal, fibre in the veg with dinner, the wholegrain rice with lunch and two pieces of fruit a day?

Reduce whey scoops from 6 scoops to 4 scoops - gotcha

Yes, I believe the higher intensity, higher volume hypertrophy routine due to HIIT principals will burn more calories - I think - happy to be corrected though.

May I ask the floor what I should be aiming for in terms of protein grams per day at my current 100kg body weight which realistically is about 25% lard.

Thanks chaps.

I've reduced the boxing recently due to a RC injury caused through benching, and also due to maxing out PBs every single lift, every single session on SS for 9 months has wiped me out. Doing the extra boxing just left me walking into the gym the next day dragging me feet, exhausted and having to force the enthusiasms and energy to go into battle. Having every other day off at least allows me to get enough energy back to give it my all.

I'd love to see a decent meal plan that is simple and doesn't involve any nuts or peanut butter etc as I'm highly allergic. Willing to give anything a go as long as it's not complicated and time consuming to prepare - I'm a meat and two veg guy, or chicken/fish with rice/pasta person.


----------



## NoGutsNoGloryy (Jan 7, 2013)

Total fat loss is based on total calories, NOT CARBS and not everybody burns the same amount of calories in one day.

Simple answer, you're eating to much for the amount of activity you're doing.


----------



## xpower (Jul 28, 2009)

Work all ya macros out as a 75KG man & see the difference


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The Sweeney said:


> Fibre - good thought - fibre in cereal, fibre in the veg with dinner, the wholegrain rice with lunch and two pieces of fruit a day?


There wasn't any rice in the sample diet you put in the first post, that will definitely help. Minimum daily fibre intake is recommended as 18g (see e.g. here), and some sources recommend more; just work it out for a day and see where you are. I partly mentioned it as for the day's food you posted there was little in the way of complex carbs.



> May I ask the floor what I should be aiming for in terms of protein grams per day at my current 100kg body weight which realistically is about 25% lard.


I don't have a good answer for that I'm afraid. I'd be curious what others think. Perhaps go with my second suggestion of dropping 1 scoop of whey and 25g carbs first.



> I'd love to see a decent meal plan that is simple and doesn't involve any nuts or peanut butter etc as I'm highly allergic. Willing to give anything a go as long as it's not complicated and time consuming to prepare - I'm a meat and two veg guy, or chicken/fish with rice/pasta person.


If you reduced the tea and had more meat and veg you'd probably be better off...

How about something like:

Breakfast: oats, banana, milk, with either eggs or whey for a protein source.

Mid-morning and mid-afternoon: whey, plus fruit if you fancy it

Lunch and evening meal: whatever meat/veg/carbs you like, but include e.g. olive oil to get your fats up.

Sticking to an appropriate daily calorie target should be top priority though.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

xpower said:


> Work all ya macros out as a 75KG man & see the difference


Lean mass rather than fat-ass mass?

Gotcha.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

NoGutsNoGloryy said:


> Total fat loss is based on total calories, NOT CARBS and not everybody burns the same amount of calories in one day.
> 
> Simple answer, you're eating to much for the amount of activity you're doing.


It's pretty simple, I guess.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> I'm surprised you are gaining weight if you truly are eating about 2500 kcal per day. Looking quickly at your day's food I wondered about the following FWIW:
> 
> Are you sure this is right? That sounds more like the data for one chop, not two.
> 
> ...


Reduce carbs to 50g a day.Fat loss is not a case of simply lowering calories.Nor are we so metabolically "perfect" that some random calculation can predict fat loss.Increase saturated fat, and protein, remove carbs.

Breakfast;4 slices bacon and 4 eggs cooked in butter;

Lunch;Salmon and some green veg.

Dinner:Grass fed beef and onions cooked in butter.

Forget protein shakes.Not required.

As much teas as you want.No sugar, no sweeteners whole milk if absolutely required, but Preferably coconut milk.

After 3/4 weeks, the fat will begin to melt away.Train 2/3 times a week.


----------



## bayliss (Aug 12, 2010)

The Sweeney said:


> Please can someone tell me where I'm going wrong in my calculations.
> 
> I'm 39, 6'4" and weigh 100kg.
> 
> ...


i am about your size and train 3 times a week.also not very physical job.my maintenance cal is 2500(found out by trial and error).if i use the net calculators i am in a moderate calorie deficit. i bulk on what i am supposed to cut at.so take som time to find out what your real maintenance is and go from there.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> There wasn't any rice in the sample diet you put in the first post, that will definitely help. Minimum daily fibre intake is recommended as 18g (see e.g. here), and some sources recommend more; just work it out for a day and see where you are. I partly mentioned it as for the day's food you posted there was little in the way of complex carbs.
> 
> I don't have a good answer for that I'm afraid. I'd be curious what others think. Perhaps go with my second suggestion of dropping 1 scoop of whey and 25g carbs first.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input.

I'll try and aim for say 150g protein.

Some days I have eggs for lunch, others I have either tuna and spud, fish and rice or chicken and rice - always wholegrain.

I see oats are very popular - why is this - what benefit are they over say some Oatabix?

Ta peeps.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

essexboy said:


> Reduce carbs to 50g a day.Fat loss is not a case of simply lowering calories.Nor are we so metabolically "perfect" that some random calculation can predict fat loss.Increase saturated fat, and protein, remove carbs.
> 
> Breakfast;4 slices bacon and 4 eggs cooked in butter;
> 
> ...


That sounds very tastey, although I'd have to swap the salmon for tuna.

Enough fibre and general fruit and veg though? 5 a day?

1 spoon of sugar in my tea is a must I'm afraid. Tried several times to cut it out in my life and it's a no go.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

The Sweeney said:


> That sounds very tastey, although I'd have to swap the salmon for tuna.
> 
> Enough fibre?
> 
> 1 spoon of sugar in my tea is a must I'm afraid. Tried several times to cut it out in my life and it's a no go.


Fibre? More nonsense generated by industry.How much fibre do Eskimos or the Masai eat?None.Swap the salmon,sure.If you want to remain fat though keep using the sugar.


----------



## NoGutsNoGloryy (Jan 7, 2013)

If you've never been low carb before, then don't bother with it. Your body has to adapt to the change and you'll just end up incredibly hungry, lose a lot of strength and feel fatigued for days, possibly weeks.

The main part of the weight loss from low carb anyway from is just glycogen depletion...

If you really want to lose the weight then just drop total calories. 1g protein per 1lb of body mass, .6g fats and rest fill with carbs. Go for 2400 calories if I was you, if not then 2300-2200 and add some cardio each day for 30min.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

essexboy said:


> Fibre? More nonsense generated by industry.How much fibre do Eskimos or the Masai eat?None.Swap the salmon,sure.If you want to remain fat though keep using the sugar.


Not sure what industry you are referring to, but just to show it isn't completely made up:

Dietary fibre, whole grains, and risk of colorectal cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies | The BMJ

As for Eskimos, unless you are going to adopt their whole lifestyle and diet, I wouldn't use that as an excuse to ignore fibre.

I'm not trying to make a big deal of fibre BTW, it was just a passing observation based on the posted diet.


----------



## Dead lee (Jul 4, 2010)

You can fuss all day with calculations, if the weight isnt going down you could chop 500 cals off your diet straight off,

I would switch the sugar in your tea for splenda tablets first call, add a few thousand cals of cardio PW as well, you can spend weeks thinking your dieting and not actually losing anything worthwhile.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

essexboy said:


> Fibre? More nonsense generated by industry.How much fibre do Eskimos or the Masai eat?None.Swap the salmon,sure.If you want to remain fat though keep using the sugar.


I'm genuinely ignorant, please can you explain how the sugar is so bad - is it not just part of the general calorie intake?


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

NoGutsNoGloryy said:


> If you really want to lose the weight then just drop total calories. 1g protein per 1lb of body mass, .6g fats and rest fill with carbs. Go for 2400 calories if I was you, if not then 2300-2200 and add some cardio each day for 30min.


220g of protein, or base it on 25% fat and hence lean body mass and therefore say 150-160g?


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Dead lee said:


> You can fuss all day with calculations, if the weight isnt going down you could chop 500 cals off your diet straight off,
> 
> I would switch the sugar in your tea for splenda tablets first call, add a few thousand cals of cardio PW as well, you can spend weeks thinking your dieting and not actually losing anything worthwhile.


Is sacrolose safe?

I'm nervous of artificial sweentners, especially the 13-15 tablets a day I'd be taking.


----------



## Quinn92 (Jul 25, 2010)

The Sweeney said:


> I'm genuinely ignorant, please can you explain how the sugar is so bad - is it not just part of the general calorie intake?


Sugar is a simple carb, digested quickly and causes a large spike in blood insulin levels, which can then play a large part in storing of body fat. I think this is fairly accurate, may be wrong


----------



## Dead lee (Jul 4, 2010)

The Sweeney said:


> Is sacrolose safe?
> 
> I'm nervous of artificial sweentners, especially the 13-15 tablets a day I'd be taking.


How safe is anyones guess but when your cutting its a great substitute, if it makes you feel better i have 5 in a cup and it taste perfect to me.. drinking plenty of cups to.

I do what i got to do to drop weight , i do plenty of things that i would class that fall into the range of 'unsafe' and i would rate splenda at the the bottom lol.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The Sweeney said:


> 220g of protein, or base it on 25% fat and hence lean body mass and therefore say 150-160g?


The 1g / lb figure is largely historical, but it is at the top end of what studies have shown, based on total body weight not lean body weight BUT in individuals likely rather leaner than yourself. If you're interested, the following review articles summarises what studies show (as of ten years ago at least), with Table 1 on the 4th page of the PDF being a summary, The figures in the table are in g / kg, with the 2.2 g / kg upper value being equivalent to 1 g / lb.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-3-1-7.pdf%29

It's a while since I looked into this which is why I don't want to start throwing 'safe' lower limits around, but I do think there is scope for you to drop your protein intake a bit (and save yourself some cash).


----------



## nitricdave (Dec 12, 2014)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Wrong
> 
> The cholesterol that you eat in food is mainly digested, and the little that gets past the liver has no significant impact on your blood cholesterol levels. The cholesterol in your body is synthesised by your body cells, and whatever cholesterol you eat that gets into your system simply causes your body to make a bit less. High cholesterol levels are a problem of regulation, not consumption. If this were not the case, vegans would all die from lack of cholesterol.
> 
> ...


Can attest to that. Last year i stupidly went on a near zero fat diet. Ended up with limp dick and bad mood . I got my bloods done and my test had gone from steady at 700 ng / dl to 330 ng/dl . Felt myself come alive once i reintroduced fats.

To the Op , from what ive read your " estimating " your intake. Weigh it and use fitness pal , be sure to double check the food items your adding as there are a lot of gammy entries . Look for ones that are confirmed or correct the ones that are wrong without confirmations.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Thanks everyone.

For the record, I'm typing this with a cup of tea WITHOUT sugar and it's not killing me.

Admittedly, it's a little weaker than I'd have it and with extra milk, but it's doable, so I might as well put my stick in the ground now and say from this day forwards, I'm a sugar free dude.

Anyhoo - tell me about oats instead of a regular 'healthy cereal' such as Oatabix or bran flakes etc... why are oats so popular?

The bacon and eggs lark sounds good, too....


----------



## bayliss (Aug 12, 2010)

The Sweeney said:


> Is sacrolose safe?
> 
> I'm nervous of artificial sweentners, especially the 13-15 tablets a day I'd be taking.


from what i have heard it`s one of the safest.


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

the problem with calorie calcs is that a lot of people have different metabolic rates that are not dependent on what they weigh


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> Not sure what industry you are referring to, but just to show it isn't completely made up:
> 
> Dietary fibre, whole grains, and risk of colorectal cancer: systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of prospective studies | The BMJ
> 
> ...


Yeah.I wondered how long it would be before someone posted a "study" I read most of these, and as with most stats they can be manipulated to reach any conclusion.

Modern grains, are modified, bereft of nutrients and full of pesticides.How ingestion of a manufactured food stuff can prevent disease is a tough pill to swallow.

The agriculture industry, is extremely powerful.We are "fed" what makes profit.Not which is good for us.The food industry does not care about health only profit.

Ive spent 5 years studying this stuff, and frankly its alarming.Ive also had every test for Bowel cancer ever concieved(plus a few that havent!) tp try and find a cause for 25 years of digestive issues.

Only after adopting a traditional diet, did my problems cease.

Monsanto, have a canteen in their head office.They used to serve, GMO food.Unfortunately no -one ate it.So they had to switch to organic.That might tell you something!


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

The Sweeney said:


> Is sacrolose safe?
> 
> I'm nervous of artificial sweentners, especially the 13-15 tablets a day I'd be taking.


Probably worse than the sugar.Aspartamine has been linked to cancer.Plus it will trick your body into thinking "sugar is on the way" However its not.You will have a load of insulin in your system with nothing to except cause inflammation.Not good.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-3-1-7.pdf%29


That is a GREAT paper with some interesting findings.

Seems there's no point in trying to consume more than about 30 ish grams of protein in one sitting, and that combining other energy sources with protein gives a prolonged nitrogen balance. Also interesting to note that it was better to take some protein just before exercise and some straight after for maximum uptake.

Also combining protein sources to help complete the AA chain is advisable.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

essexboy said:


> Modern grains, are modified, bereft of nutrients...


We're talking about fibre not micronutrients. Do you mean modified as in genetic modification, or by simple cross-breading? In the UK at least GM food is not widespread, has to be labelled as such, and I don't eat any. Not that I have any particular concerns about doing so at present.



> Ive spent 5 years studying this stuff, and frankly its alarming.


Studying in what capacity?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> We're talking about fibre not micronutrients. Do you mean modified as in genetic modification, or by simple cross-breading? In the UK at least GM food is not widespread, has to be labelled as such, and I don't eat any. Not that I have any particular concerns about doing so at present.
> 
> Studying in what capacity?


As an individual trying to discover a way to "cure" apparent medical issues.Which, werent medical after all.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The Sweeney said:


> Seems there's no point in trying to consume more than about 30 ish grams of protein in one sitting...


That is on the basis of optimising muscle protein synthesis caused by ingesting the protein. This may be different to what determines your total daily protein requirements. Also, studies looking at the response to protein are (necessarily) very artificial, and only look at effects over short time frames. Not saying disregard the studies, but trying to give a balanced view.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

essexboy said:


> Probably worse than the sugar.Aspartamine has been linked to cancer.Plus it will trick your body into thinking "sugar is on the way" However its not.You will have a load of insulin in your system with nothing to except cause inflammation.Not good.


Sucralose and aspartame are different substances, which may therefore have different effects. I completely agree that there is certainly evidence that artificial sweeteners aren't benign though:

Sugar substitutes linked to obesity : Nature News & Comment

What I haven't looked into at all is at what sort of intake there might be any sort of issue though.


----------



## NoGutsNoGloryy (Jan 7, 2013)

The Sweeney said:


> 220g of protein, or base it on 25% fat and hence lean body mass and therefore say 150-160g?


I actually meant to put .4g fats. So say total calories are 2400 for cutting. For you macros I would personally go for are. 220g protein 88g fats = 1672kcals, rest filled with carbs (728 calories remaining) = 182g carbs.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

NoGutsNoGloryy said:


> I actually meant to put .4g fats. So say total calories are 2400 for cutting. For you macros I would personally go for are. 220g protein 88g fats = 1672kcals, rest filled with carbs (728 calories remaining) = 182g carbs.


Thanks.

Just had another cup of tea without sugar....

BTW - any fats that do or don't count?

For example, can I enjoy the fat on my pork chops or sirloin as much as the fat in my scrambled eggs and milk?


----------



## NoGutsNoGloryy (Jan 7, 2013)

The Sweeney said:


> Is sacrolose safe?
> 
> I'm nervous of artificial sweentners, especially the 13-15 tablets a day I'd be taking.


Dude, when I used to eat oats I would have like 8 HEAPED tablespoons of sweetener with them, sometimes i'd even just pour the sweetener from the tub onto them and this wasn't the only time of day i'd be using sweetener to lol.

If anybody's going to get some type of cancer or whatever it is you get from the stuff, it'd be me.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> Sucralose and aspartame are different substances, which may therefore have different effects. I completely agree that there is certainly evidence that artificial sweeteners aren't benign though:
> 
> Sugar substitutes linked to obesity : Nature News & Comment
> 
> What I haven't looked into at all is at what sort of intake there might be any sort of issue though.


I just lumped them all together, to be honest.I presumed Sucralose to be a brand name for Aspartamine.The dose/effect outcome would be difficult to prove,(if it exists) Personally Id rather not trust any industrial chemicals to be totally benign.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Still waiting for the 'why oats are so popular' explanation from anyone please, as opposed to regular high fibre cereal etc.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

The Sweeney said:


> Still waiting for the 'why oats are so popular' explanation from anyone please, as opposed to regular high fibre cereal etc.


Because its been marketed effectively.The high fibre cereal is NOT some magical potion that will prevent disease.Its marketed that way, and eventually becomes imbeded in the psyche.Weve only been eating grains for 3% of human existence.Suddenly they are "essential" for health.Its Boll.ocks.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The Sweeney said:


> Still waiting for the 'why oats are so popular' explanation from anyone please, as opposed to regular high fibre cereal etc.


Well compared to the Oatibix you said you were eating the major diffence would be cost, since Oatibix are 97% oats! No particular reason you should swap though. As to generally why oats are thought healthy, it's mainly the soluble fibre content:

http://heartuk.org.uk/images/uploads/healthylivingpdfs/HUK_factsheet_F09_OatBetaGlucanF.pdf

Typical breakfast cereals have a fair amount of sugar in them which personally I choose to avoid. Oats are also cheap, and I like eating them  .


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

essexboy said:


> Because its been marketed effectively.The high fibre cereal is NOT some magical potion that will prevent disease.Its marketed that way, and eventually becomes imbeded in the psyche.Weve only been eating grains for 3% of human existence.Suddenly they are "essential" for health.Its Boll.ocks.


I hear you.

So what's good about oats - what are the doing for me?

I assume they're good stuff as so many people eat them?


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Well compared to the Oatibix you said you were eating the major diffence would be cost, since Oatibix are 97% oats! No particular reason you should swap though. As to generally why oats are thought healthy, it's mainly the soluble fibre content:
> 
> http://heartuk.org.uk/images/uploads/healthylivingpdfs/HUK_factsheet_F09_OatBetaGlucanF.pdf
> 
> Typical breakfast cereals have a fair amount of sugar in them which personally I choose to avoid. Oats are also cheap, and I like eating them  .


Perfect, thanks.

Oats, banana, milk, 2 scoops?


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

AlQaholic said:


> Placebo gainz are still gainz brah


How many grams placebo?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

The Sweeney said:


> I hear you.
> 
> So what's good about oats - what are the doing for me?
> 
> I assume they're good stuff as so many people eat them?


Exactly.What are they doing?Nothing apart from spiking Insulin, introducing chemicals into your system.As I previously mentioned, marketing has made everyone think they are required."Wheat belly" is a god place to start.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

essexboy said:


> Exactly.What are they doing?Nothing apart from spiking Insulin, introducing chemicals into your system.


If you don't want to eat foods like oats that's up to you, but trying to argue that a bag of oats is a food so toxically loaded with significant amounts of artificial chemicals that they should be avoided on health grounds is a serious stretch in my book.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> If you don't want to eat foods like oats that's up to you, but trying to argue that a bag of oats is a food so toxically loaded with significant amounts of artificial chemicals that they should be avoided on health grounds is a serious stretch in my book.


Do the research.Its all out there.I Know its uncomfortable to accept that some of our beliefs, that have been firmly entrenched might not be as true as we used to think.Corruption, lies and agenda are sadly a part of humanity when profit is involved.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The Sweeney said:


> Perfect, thanks.
> 
> Oats, banana, milk, 2 scoops?


Seriously, stick to your current breakfast cereal if you enjoy it. When I put oats above I was just quickly typing a suggestion, it wasn't to try to add some magical food to your diet! As to how much whey it depends what fits with what you're eating over the rest of the day, to fit whatever target protein intake you decide on.

The main thing to do is to drop your calorie intake a bit. I know my posts sometimes suggest I think otherwise, but don't get bogged down in getting things somehow exactly right beyond that. No-one knows what the perfect diet is, and it will be different for each individual, and vary over time even for the same individual.

Have you tried using something like myfitnesspal? That makes tracking what you eat pretty straightforward, just check the data when you pick a new food as occasionally you find another user has entered something silly. I had some sultanas recently that apparently contained zero carbs for instance.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

essexboy said:


> Do the research.Its all out there.I Know its uncomfortable to accept that some of our beliefs, that have been firmly entrenched might not be as true as we used to think.Corruption, lies and agenda are sadly a part of humanity when profit is involved.


To quote Carl Sagan (admittedly rather out of context), "Extraoardinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It is up to you to provide evidence that the oats on UK supermarket shelves are somehow dangerous if you expect to be believed.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> To quote Carl Sagan (admittedly rather out of context), "Extraoardinary claims require extraordinary evidence". It is up to you to provide evidence that the oats on UK supermarket shelves are somehow dangerous if you expect to be believed.


Ok lets change perspective on this.I have no agenda.Im not linked to the "wheat" industry in any way.I have spent a lot of time, researching the effects that consumption of modified grains might have on humans(as well as other modified foodstuffs)

Its just an opinion.However, I do believe it too be valid.Im not out to prove anything, nor am I trying to demonise.

Modified grains were introduced in the early 1970s, to help world hunger.A noble, cause.However, introducing "food" that our bodies may not recognise, or be able to deal with on a prolonged basis, may not in my view be prudent.

Much the same as trans fats.Who would have thought 30 years ago, when we were being told to use margarine as a "healthy"alternative, that a by product of the petroleum industry(apparently) might not be as good for us as we were told?

As one scientist said "If you have a heart attack dont blame the animals, blame Proctor and Gamble" Who incidentally bribed the AHA to con the public into thinking vegetable oils were healthy.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

essexboy said:


> Modified grains were introduced in the early 1970s, to help world hunger.


As I asked above, modified how? And are we talking about products likely to be on sale in the UK, or possibly in North America?


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> As I asked above, modified how? And are we talking about products likely to be on sale in the UK, or possibly in North America?


Ok this is from memory.The "dwarf" strain of wheat was developed to provide a high yield, whilst not actually falling over under its own weight .iirc.I dont know the scientific process.However, genes from various strain,s plus insecticides are spliced together.Higher yields, less disease.more profit.

Every wheat product (unless Organic) will be modified.Even organic fields suffer cross contamination."Seeds of death" IIRC is a good view.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

But bacon, eggs and butter is ok, as that sound luuuuurvley!!!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

essexboy said:


> Ok this is from memory.The "dwarf" strain of wheat was developed to provide a high yield, whilst not actually falling over under its own weight .iirc.I dont know the scientific process.However, genes from various strain,s plus insecticides are spliced together.Higher yields, less disease.more profit.
> 
> Every wheat product (unless Organic) will be modified.Even organic fields suffer cross contamination."Seeds of death" IIRC is a good view.


So your concerns relate to wheat instead of oats?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

essexboy said:


> "Seeds of death" IIRC is a good view.


From the first 5 minutes of the documentary it appears to be about the issues regarding GM wheat, which are a potential issue in the US, but I believe are not in the UK at present. Or at least legally all GM food for human consumption needs to be labelled as such and so can be avoided if you want. Now there may be an issue of GM foods being sold but not labelled as required, but that is something there won't be any real data on I suspect.

I will try to find time to watch the full documentary at some point, as I am interested.


----------



## TheSurgeon (Sep 2, 2013)

Reduce sugar and try the PHAT workout programme.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> From the first 5 minutes of the documentary it appears to be about the issues regarding GM wheat, which are a *potential issue in the US, but I believe are not in the UK at present*. Or at least legally all GM food for human consumption needs to be labelled as such and so can be avoided if you want. Now there may be an issue of GM foods being sold but not labelled as required, but that is something there won't be any real data on I suspect.
> 
> I will try to find time to watch the full documentary at some point, as I am interested.


Watch on.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

The Sweeney said:


> But bacon, eggs and butter is ok, as that sound luuuuurvley!!!


Organic,eat with impunity.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> So your concerns relate to wheat instead of oats?


Wheat, Rye, Oats etc.The potential for profit exists.Therefore so does the bastardisation.

.


----------



## sharaf (Jan 31, 2015)

Some times eating under maintenance can lead to slower metabolism.......ithink ur problem isn't how much u eat it is what u eat...........eat on maintenance but lower

ur carbs by30%...ur fats 70%....sugar90%


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

essexboy said:


> Wheat, Rye, Oats etc.The potential for profit exists.Therefore so does the bastardisation.


A quick Google suggests there are no GM oats anywhere:

Why There Are No GMO Oats (and Probably Never Will Be) - Modern Farmer

Oat - GMO Database


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

TheSurgeon said:


> Reduce sugar and try the PHAT workout programme.


The OP has another thread about training, and if you read that I think you'll agree that PHAT is likely to be far too much volume for him.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

sharaf said:


> Some times eating under maintenance can lead to slower metabolism.......ithink ur problem isn't how much u eat it is what u eat...........eat on maintenance but lower
> 
> ur carbs by30%...ur fats 70%....sugar90%


Well I've given up sugar in my tea, so hopefully that ticks the sugar box.

Carbs - I'm cutting out the rice / pasta with my fish or chicken lunch and replacing with tomatos, or onions or peppers etc.

You say reduce fats by 70%..... others are saying I'm barely eating enough fats... please can you explain if I'm misunderstood.

Cheers for your input.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

TheSurgeon said:


> Reduce sugar and try the PHAT workout programme.





Ultrasonic said:


> The OP has another thread about training, and if you read that I think you'll agree that PHAT is likely to be far too much volume for him.


I don't know what PHAT is, other that apparently one of the girls in accounts is often referred to a PHAT if that counts as anything?

But... I've been doing SS and am now moving over to The Muscle Building Workout Routine - Build Muscle Mass Fast which I hope to put on more size and train in a more HIIT fashion rather than the long rests between sets that SS uses.


----------



## TheSurgeon (Sep 2, 2013)

The Sweeney said:


> I don't know what PHAT is, other that apparently one of the girls in accounts is often referred to a PHAT if that counts as anything?
> 
> But... I've been doing SS and am now moving over to The Muscle Building Workout Routine - Build Muscle Mass Fast which I hope to put on more size and train in a more HIIT fashion rather than the long rests between sets that SS uses.


Google it mate. Layne Norton PHAT workout programme.

Dropped from 15st 3 to 12st 8 last year in about 4 months.

That and the EC stack


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

todai said:


> Cereal for breakfast would be my guess - instant insulin spike/no more fat burning - they saying 'earn your carbs' when it comes to cutting.


Who the fuq says this LOL probably the worst post i seen this year


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

The Sweeney said:


> Please can someone tell me where I'm going wrong in my calculations.
> 
> I'm 39, 6'4" and weigh 100kg.
> 
> ...


Cant be hooped reading the whole thread but the problem sticks out like a sore thumb IMO.

9hrs at a desk and 1 hour in the gym isnt 'moderately active', its a common misconception that a few hours in the gym is what they mean here, but it really isnt.

I train at least three times a week and am pretty active at least one day over the weekend but dont class myself as moderately active.


----------



## Mince Pies (Dec 3, 2014)

if your taking your exercise cals burned off your TDEE, dont! thats where i went wrong. Your TDEE looks high even for a lad your size.

im 5'8" 92kgs. @ 16-18% BF, BMR 1980, i work at a desk job i eat 2200 to 2300 cals a day, my macros are 40/40/20 (prot/carb/fat) i do four gym sessions a week at 2 hours weights and 30 mins cardio each session, and im dropping weight at a rate of about 1-2lbs a week.

I don't count exercise in my calculations and don't consider myself moderately active either.


----------



## sharaf (Jan 31, 2015)

The Sweeney said:


> Well I've given up sugar in my tea, so hopefully that ticks the sugar box.
> 
> Carbs - I'm cutting out the rice / pasta with my fish or chicken lunch and replacing with tomatos, or onions or peppers etc.
> 
> ...


i didnt say avoid pasta rice and other carbs ...acually they are the main source of power i said eat 70% of the usual carbs u take ...fats are essential when u wanna bulk up...but fat loss +hight fat intake..is crazy......go on that for for amonth ...if no change u should see a doctor cos u may have problem with ur metabolism......dont worry bro i had ur problem and now it's gone with hard workout balanced diet


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

sharaf said:


> i didnt say avoid pasta rice and other carbs ...acually they are the main source of power i said eat 70% of the usual carbs u take ...fats are essential when u wanna bulk up...but fat loss +hight fat intake..is crazy......go on that for for amonth ...if no change u should see a doctor cos u may have problem with ur metabolism......dont worry bro i had ur problem and now it's gone with hard workout balanced diet


Oh dear... I dont know where to start on this!

worst advice I've read in ages.

if it can even be counted as advice.

fats are essential... full stop.

your idea of nutrition is fresh out of the 90's dude.

ultimately though, bar tweaks to fit your lifestyle it doesnt matter what you eat to lose fat so long as your calories are right.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

The reduction of 13-15 heaped spoons of sugar every day, plus only 2 scoops fo whey not 6 per day, plus reduced (not depleted) portions of carbs wshoulde see a decent reduction in my typical daily calorie intake.

The protein will still be up circa 180g and the fats about the same.

Hopefully this along with my new routine will see my body fat below 20% by the end of summer.

I don't want to cut too many cals as I really want to add some muscle this year now I've built up some basic strength on SS.


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

Big ape said:


> Who the fuq says this LOL probably the worst post i seen this year


Just Ben Pakulski - but obviously you know better - so please correct me since i'm wrong please - education is key afterall


----------



## x_inferno (May 30, 2014)

The Sweeney said:


> I'm genuinely ignorant, please can you explain how the sugar is so bad - is it not just part of the general calorie intake?


Sugar - The Sweet Truth


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

todai said:


> Just Ben Pakulski - but obviously you know better - so please correct me since i'm wrong please - education is key afterall


so if I have cereal for breakfast and eat nothing all day, I'll fail to lose weight cos Ben said?

or does that make the statement a bit stupid?

There is a half way ground though, apparently cereal can cause an early insulin spike which could cause issues for those who are sensitive.

just saying that this is the problem without anything else is silly though.


----------



## Big ape (May 5, 2011)

todai said:


> Just Ben Pakulski - but obviously you know better - so please correct me since i'm wrong please - education is key afterall


if ben said jump of a bridge would u nosh him of then jump off tho? srs


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

x_inferno said:


> Sugar - The Sweet Truth


Interesting.....

Sugar - The Sweet Truth

Written by: Menno Henselmans

There are only 2 things that every nutritionist in the world seems to agree on (and we know everyone is a nutritionist these days). Vegetables are good and sugar is bad.

But things aren't so black and white if we let the light of science shine on sugar. Will sugar make you fat? It depends on your diet.

Specifically, sugar's effect on your body composition depends on if your diet has a predefined set of macros that you stick to every day or if you just eat until you're full.

All-you-can-eat sugar

If you eat until you're full (ad libitum, as researchers call it), and you start adding sugar to your coffee, your oatmeal and your protein shakes, you are most likely going to gain weight (or lose less weight, if you're in an energy deficit).

The reason is simple. Sugar scores very low on the satiety index. This means it doesn't fill you up much relative to how much energy you consume. So if you add sugar to a meal, you won't eat much less of it. In fact, you may eat more of it because it's tastier (higher palatability, as labcoats say). Adding sugar to your meals will thus generally increase your energy intake.

And since your body follows the laws of physics, specifically the laws of thermodynamics, what happens to your weight depends on your body's energy balance. You gain weight in an energy surplus, because energy will be stored. You lose weight in an energy deficit, because your body will have to oxidize AKA burn bodily tissue to get enough energy.

sugar

Sugar tracking

Ok, so far so obvious. But what we really want to know is this. Is table sugar AKA sucrose (50% glucose, 50% fructose) more fattening than starches like rice or oatmeal when you consume the same amount of calories?

Many studies have compared groups eating a diet with the same macronutrient composition (% protein, % fat, % carbs) that differed only in which carb sources were consumed. The groups eating lots of sugar lose just as much fat without losing more muscle mass than the groups consuming little or no sugar [2-3]. In studies where complex carbs like whole-wheat bread are replaced with sugar but the total caloric intake is kept constant, no body composition changes take place [4].

So as long as you track your macros, having sugar in your diet is in itself not bad for your physique. And it gets even better.

Not so simple

A 6 month study of 390 participants found that this is true for all simple carbs, like fructose (fruit sugar) and lactose (milk sugar): whether you consume simple or complex carbs does not affect your body composition [1]. Or, for that matter, your blood lipids, an important marker of your cardiovascular (heart) health.

While it is easy to classify simple carbs as bad and complex carbs as good, the distinction between simple and complex carbs is in fact completely arbitrary. It is merely a medical tradition that we call carbohydrates with 3 or more sugars 'complex carbs' and we call carbohydrates with 1 or 2 sugars 'simple carbs'.

What about blood sugar?

It is a myth that sugar causes a massive blood sugar spike followed by a complete crash. The effect on a food's blood sugar is measured by the glycaemic index (GI). Sugar, due to its 50% fructose content, has a GI of ~68, which is a 'medium' effect on blood sugar. Sugar even has a lower GI than whole-wheat bread, which has a GI of ~71 [7]. The same applies to the insulin index [6].

What about health?

There are many cultures in tropical climates thriving on diets of up to 90% carbohydrates [8-10]. And we're not talking oatmeal and broccoli here. These cultures rely on sugary fruits. In fact, honey is the favorite food of the Hadza from Tanzania [9].

Evolution has made sure our bodies can deal with sugar, because it is found in many of the world's most nutritious foods: fruits. Fruit is in fact one of the foods humans have consumed for the longest period of our genetic existence. It has been a staple in our diet ever since we were still monkeys living in the jungle [5, 11]. And glucose is literally in our blood.

Conclusion

Sugar isn't bad. Nor is it good. Sugar has empty calories. It doesn't satiate. But if your overall diet is very nutritious, you are healthy and physically active and you are tracking your macros, sugar won't make your abs fade into a mountain of lard. You don't have to live on rice and broccoli. And unless you have a food intolerance, you certainly shouldn't avoid fruit or dairy because they contain sugar. That's exactly the kind of broscience that drives bodybuilders into following obsessive and monotone diets that aren't healthy in psychological or nutritional terms.

Interested in more articles like this and advancing your fitness education? Have a look at the Bayesian PT certification program, an evidence based course about the science of physique training.


----------



## Todai (Jul 18, 2010)

andyboro said:


> so if I have cereal for breakfast and eat nothing all day, I'll fail to lose weight cos Ben said?
> 
> or does that make the statement a bit stupid?
> 
> ...


Sorry didn't mean it like that I meant that could be one of the ways. But I see were you're coming from - Thank you



Big ape said:


> if ben said jump of a bridge would u nosh him of then jump off tho? srs


Depends - if he said jump off the bridge thats 5m high and into a warm river in the Caribbean, then when you get out there will be loads of hot naked women waiting with cocktails and i'm free to do as I please.

Then yes I would - but thanks for educating me as to why I was wrong in the post... I've learned more with the other people giving contribution to the thread and at the very least spelling words fully. 'U' LOL :rockon:


----------



## sharaf (Jan 31, 2015)

andyboro said:


> Oh dear... I dont know where to start on this!
> 
> worst advice I've read in ages.
> 
> ...


hahahaha. ...ok thanx.....he lowerd his calories intake as u say with no results .....about fats u can go back to primary school and see what the cell wall is made of. i bet u didnt finish ur primary school.......when having problem with metabolism calories dont have that much effect remember this (kid)


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

sharaf said:


> hahahaha. ...ok thanx.....he lowerd his calories intake as u say with no results .....about fats u can go back to primary school and see what the cell wall is made of. i bet u didnt finish ur primary school.......when having problem with metabolism calories dont have that much effect remember this (kid)


Hmm, ok... so back to school..

If tommy has 1000 cals of fat and timmy has 1000 cals of sugar... who has the most cals?

Taking fats out of a diet to drop bodyfat is a really outdated practise.

But you know, you clearly know better... ive only been doing this lark for 18 years - what do I know.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

TommyBananas said:


> Sugar is not bad. There is heaps of *terrible* information here but I have no energy left to start this debate again.


The study I posted that was linked to certainly doesn't have it as the food of the devil, more that is of no real added nutritional value other than pure carbohydrate.

I'm happy to cut it out from my cups of tea though as it will at least reduce the amount of calories I'm taking in per day in the correct macro ratio.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

sharaf said:


> about fats u can go back to primary school and see what the cell wall is made of.


What the cell membrane is made of is utterly irrelevant.


----------



## Charlee Scene (Jul 6, 2010)

sharaf said:


> i didnt say avoid pasta rice and other carbs ...acually they are the main source of power i said eat 70% of the usual carbs u take ...fats are essential when u wanna bulk up...but fat loss +hight fat intake..is crazy......go on that for for amonth ...if no change u should see a doctor cos u may have problem with ur metabolism......dont worry bro i had ur problem and now it's gone with hard workout balanced diet


One of the most idiotic things I have seen on here in a while, FAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU FAT


----------



## sharaf (Jan 31, 2015)

Charlee Scene said:


> One of the most idiotic things I have seen on here in a while, FAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU FAT


I said when u wanna bulk up not it makes u fat. Read it again bro......cos 1gm of fat gives ~9cals....mean it is the easiest way to get much calories .......


----------



## damn shame (Jan 2, 2015)

Read through the topic, stand by my original post

eat less.

You don't put on 10KG and 4" on your waste eating at maintenance unless you have some sort of medical condition.


----------



## andyboro (Oct 1, 2006)

sharaf said:


> I said when u wanna bulk up not it makes u fat. Read it again bro......cos 1gm of fat gives ~9cals....mean it is the easiest way to get much calories .......


Your bike seems to be broken..... its pedalling backwards!


----------



## sharaf (Jan 31, 2015)

andyboro said:


> Your bike seems to be broken..... its pedalling backwards!


Yeah whatever


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

damn shame said:


> Read through the topic, stand by my original post
> 
> eat less.
> 
> You don't put on 10KG and 4" on your waste eating at maintenance unless you have some sort of medical condition.


I think my medical condition is: PUSSY :lol:

I've cut my daily intake to about 2200 cals, mainly through cutting out sugar and one less piece of fruit and a little smaller portions of veg on the plate. This increases my fat percentage to approx. 20% now and still keeps me a 180-200g protein.

Weighed myself again this morning, dry, after a pi$$ at exactly 100.4kg.


----------



## Mince Pies (Dec 3, 2014)

Aspartame based sweeteners have NO effect on insulin response. Sucrolose based ones do, albeit minimal hardley noticable.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Still not taking any sugar in my tea. Still tastes like sh1t, but I'll stick with it. :lol:

Quick question - given that there's not a huge amount of fat in my diet, is a little cheese ok as a late night snack - fat and protein but no carbs?


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

The Sweeney said:


> Still not taking any sugar in my tea. Still tastes like sh1t, but I'll stick with it. :lol:
> 
> Quick question - given that there's not a huge amount of fat in my diet, is a little cheese ok as a late night snack - fat and protein but no carbs?


yep, eggs and and peanuts are also a good bedtime snack


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The Sweeney said:


> Quick question - given that there's not a huge amount of fat in my diet, is a little cheese ok as a late night snack - fat and protein but no carbs?


Of course! (Just keep track of the portion size.)

Edit: oh and carbs before bed aren't a problem either FWIW.


----------



## The Sweeney (May 8, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> Of course! (Just keep track of the portion size.)
> 
> Edit: oh and carbs before bed aren't a problem either FWIW.


Couple of chunks the size of my thumb.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

The Sweeney said:


> Couple of chunks the size of my thumb.


That would be quite a lot of calories... Plenty will say I'm OTT, but personally I would definitely be weighing it. Cheese is very calorie dense.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Ultrasonic said:


> @Big Man 123Personally I'd keep fat intake in the 20-35% range, since this is what is currently recommended for general health (see here*).
> 
> *I have a copy of this full paper but can't quickly find the link where I got it from - I'll try to find it later as it is interesting (if you care about fats!)


I doubt anyone is interested, but this was the paper I was looking for:

http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672%2813%2901672-9/pdf

I just came across it by accident when looking for something else.


----------



## Bish83 (Nov 18, 2009)

essexboy said:


> Fibre? More nonsense generated by industry.How much fibre do Eskimos or the Masai eat?None.Swap the salmon,sure.If you want to remain fat though keep using the sugar.


They ate that stuff raw which would have been loaded with probiotics thats good for gut health. Fiber feeds the guts as well.

From my last reading the eskimos at a lot of fatty fish but it did cause blood thinning and made it harder for wounds to heal. There was a doctor/professor that lived off the eskimo diet (can't remember this guys name) that found this out as well.


----------

