GravelMN

I don't disagree with much of what Machka and Carbonfiberboy are saying. Here is the quote that I disagree with (emphasis added)

CICO does matter but it is not all that matters. Someone reading the above quote could assume that I should be able to consume 1600 kCal/day of bacon fat and Twinkies as my weight loss nutrition plan (my estimated BMR is about 1800 kCal). Obviously, even if I did lose weight, the grossly disproportionate and poor quality macros and lack of micronutrients would be seriously detrimental to my health and fitness. You might be able to lose weight on portion controlled amounts of Mountain Dew and donuts but that doesn't make it a sound nutrition plan. Monster energy drinks were the preferred calorie source for one of my daughter's friends in college. He was skinny as a rail but neither strong nor healthy.

Both Machka and CFB spoke about tailoring a nutritious diet to the particular needs and activities of the individual, varying the portions of macros to do "anything we want", or discovering the balance ... their own personal diet where they can eat in a way that works for them. That's all that I'm saying. There are multiple factors that must be considered to find what is the best nutrition for the individual. The balance of macros that works for me might not be the best for someone else even at the same caloric deficit and with similar goals. I'm not disputing the validity of CICO but it is just part of the big picture.

Please don't get me wrong. I don't believe that there is some magic manipulation of macronutrients (low carb, high fat, high protein, whatever) that will automatically cause you to lose weight and be healthy no matter how much you eat. Calories do count.

Since going controlled/reduced simple carb and low GI, my triglycerides have been cut in half, my total cholesterol and LDL are down, my HDL is up. I've lost 20 pounds in eight weeks and have had no cravings and very consistent energy levels. My sleep has also improved. My last BP was 112/72 with a resting heart rate of 56. I know the weight loss is due to a caloric deficit but maintaining that deficit is so much easier when the rest of my nutrition is high quality and in the right balance for me.

Sixty Fiver

Gravel MN - A diet composed of mountain Dew and donuts would have some serious consequences aside from being deficient, high consumption of fructose (Mountain Dew) has been shown to increase the bad LDL (small particles) and can cause non alcoholic fatty liver disease.

We are not designed to consume large amounts of fructose for extended periods of time and it causes serious health problems, the fact it has a low GI does not mean it is better for you as it is metabolized by the liver and does not suppress ghrelin, which is the hormone that causes hunger.

There is good reason why so many prepared foods and beverages contain high amounts of fructose as a sweetener, besides tasting good it does not satiate hunger so you end up wanting to eat more to fill what you perceive as a gap.

More and more research is pointing toward sugar consumption, and particularly high amounts of fructose in the modern diet as a leading contributor to coronary issues while fats, which have never been proven to increase coronary risk, are back on the table.

We keep our carb intake lower than most people, my wife stays under <30 grams a day and I hover around 100 grams per day and when I have checked, we both eat around 2500 calories a day.

She lost 70 pounds when she went low carb, she already had a very healthy diet and because of celiac disease was almost grain free... all she changed was the macros and actually increased her food intake with not much of a change in activity levels.

On the numbers front, our doctor said they could not get any better save for my wife's blood pressure which is high normal and a side effect of some medications she has to take.

My numbers have always been excellent, they just got better when I cut back on the carbs and this stunned my doctor... maybe it is all the veggies (the source of almost all our carbs).

But then again, it could be the bacon, butter, whole cream, and coconut oil.

I usually win the blood pressure lottery at my doctor's office... the nurse said I run out like a teenager (I'm 50).

Then I remind her that I put butter in my coffee.

Both my physician and his nurse have started on reduced carb diets, he is about my age and was developing some minor middle aged spread and our nurse was looking more apple shaped but they are both looking much better of late, especially our nurse.

I am not anti carb and I don't confuse calories with carbs either... I think there is a lot to be said for looking at what you eat and making steps to avoid the things we are not well designed to eat... humans can subsist on pretty much anything for a time but it is a long race.

Machka 

What I said is true.
If your goal is to lose weight, you can indeed eat whatever you want as long as it is less than what you burn. You can indeed lose weight on the Mountain Dew and donut diet. You could even lose weight if you mixed fructose in a glass of water and drank that 3 times a day. As long as the calories you consumed were fewer than what you burned.

You would probably feel like crap ... but you would lose weight.

However, most people would prefer to lose weight and not feel like crap. And that's where the thinking part comes in.

To quote myself from a previous post:

And that's where the thinking part of CICO comes in. When you've only got a certain number of calories to work with, you've got to make good decisions about what you choose to eat. It forces you to think.

You can eat anything you want, but perhaps the bowl of brown rice, veg, and a little bit of chicken might be the better lunch choice over a bar of milk chocolate. They might both work out to the same number of calories, but you might feel fuller longer with the rice, veg & chicken.

Personally, I have four main goals:

1) Lose weight
2) Feel reasonably comfortable while losing weight
3) Be able to climb the monster hills around here while losing weight
4) Maintain or improve my health

I can accomplish the first goal on the Mountain Dew and donut diet. But the Mountain Dew and donut diet is probably not going to leave me feeling reasonably comfortable and is probably not going to give me the energy to scale the mountains and probably won't do much for my health.

So then, I have to figure out what will accomplish all four goals.

There is some trial and error and it is a bit of a balancing act.

1) In order to lose weight I need to keep the calories I consume less than what I burn.
2) In order to feel reasonably comfortable while losing weight, I need to consume foods with some staying power ... foods that won't adversely affect my blood sugar levels.
3) In order to be able to climb the monster hills around here, I need energy.
4) And in order to be able to maintain or improve my health, I need to go easy on animal proteins and fats, while consuming a fairly high quantity of fibre.

So for me, lots of veggies is a key part of my diet. Whole grains are also important. And then low-moderate amounts of animal protein.

That's what works for me.

Now I said several times that CICO is flexible, and it is.

I've identified what works for me, but there are variations within that. I don't need to eat broccoli, brown rice, and chicken every single day. I can mix it up. As I've mentioned elsewhere, my diet has actually had more variety since I started tracking with MyFitnessPal (MFP) than it did before. I'm browsing through grocery stores and trying new things. Occasionally I hit something meh ... but for the most part, I've been quite pleasantly surprised by all the delicious choices available.

And others (you, SixtyFiver, and others) have identified what works for them. As I mentioned, it has been interesting to read on MFP what others are eating. All different variations and preferences, but all within their calorie limits.

This is it, exactly ...



The other aspect of flexibility is that we are allowed yummy food and treats ... as long as they are within our calorie limit. So while we're not on the Mountain Dew and donut diet ... we might have a donut once in a while. And my personal preference is that I need to work for my treats.

I mentioned I had half a chocolate cheesecake on my birthday. Mmmmmm!!! But I cycled enough earlier in the day to compensate for it. I worked for it.

Since I started with MFP, we've ended up in a rather unusual situation. Normally, our lives are not particularly social and we don't go out to restaurants very much. But since I started, we went away for a weekend to see the Penny Farthing Championships. Then there was my birthday long weekend. Then, on two separate weekends we had old friends come and visit. Then we went over to Victoria for the Easter holiday and met up with more friends over there. It's been one thing after another!

I've been exercising my butt off to compensate for the dinners and sometimes desserts. But I've also been trying to make good choices. It helps when the restaurant posts the calorie count of their menu items and I can pre-select something that I both like and is low-cal. And I must say, that has been an eye-opening learning experience. Increased awareness.

wolfchild

Low-calorie diets make people skinny fat...They look lean and skinny because all their muscles have been catabolised, they lack lean muscle mass, all their muscle mass has been lost due to low calorie/low protein intake, and yet they still have an unhealthy levels of triglycirides and fat inside their bodies. I just can't imagine how anybody can live on 1200-1500 calories per day, it's starvation diet. Just because somebody looses weight and looks skinny doesn't mean that they are healthy.

Machka 

Maybe you'd like to reread the discussion between GravelMN, Carbonfibreboy and me. We're not talking about this ^^.

Carbonfiberboy 

Doesn't work quite that way, in that exercise is a bigger driver than diet.

I've never done a starvation diet. Wouldn't be possible for me. I work out too hard. I lost about 15 lbs. from what I thought was my healthy weight while legs and arms actually got bigger and my cycling watts went up. I simply ate less, more frequently, rode, and worked out. As I've continued to lose weight, my leg size stabilized, while my arms and belly continue to shrink. That's by design.

I have a friend who thought he was overweight, so he went on the Atkins diet. He ate a diet very high in protein and almost no carbs. However, it went about as you say anyway: he got skinny, lost muscle mass and in general didn't look so good. Why? He didn't exercise at all. It's not diet that builds muscle, it's hard work. However he's continued with the diet even so, and now he's fat again but still unmuscular. He's gone totally downhill because he's cycled his CICO and did no exercise. The more one does that, the worse it gets. While one loses protein more slowly than fat, one also puts on fat more quickly than protein.

OTOH, if someone is obese, a very calorie restricted diet is probably a good idea to start with, of whatever composition. That's what doctors recommend. Overweight people usually have more muscle than one would suspect, simply because it's hard to move that weight around. When PTs at our gym start working with overweight people, it's amazing how much weight they can use.

One loses fat more quickly than protein on a calorie restricted diet. That's the reason that bodybuilders follow a bulk-up/cut cycle. First they overeat so they put on lots of protein and a good bit of fat, then they go on a very calorie restricted diet. Their muscles catabolize a little bit, but mostly their fat catabolizes. Is that the healthiest thing to do? Probably not, but being overweight is the least healthy thing to do. Almost anything is better than that. However working out hard is healthy. Do whatever turns you on, but do.

After one has gotten down to a reasonable weight, settling into a healthy lifestyle becomes possible. My friend chose not to do that.

DaveLeeNC

Just a general comment about all this - from a biased position, BTW.

And my bias is about 'Nutrition Science' or whatever you should call it. I have a moderate cholesterol problem and for 35 years was told that I needed to be very careful about my dietary cholesterol. 35 years is a VERY long time to be flat wrong about something as basic as this.

And now we hear that, despite the fact that obesity is a 'national epidemic' that we don't even understand the caloric contributions of various forms of carbs vs. protein (and possibly fat). Maybe it is simply "calories in vs. calories out" but clearly we don't know how to measure calories in, so I don't know how anyone could claim that 'this is fact'. We don't even understand the question as in "WHAT calories in???".

I find this whole thing somewhat disturbing - or at least irritating.

dave

wolfchild

I enjoy reading your posts, even if I disagree with some of the stuff you say and do...You are missing one of the most important fundamentals of how to loose fat and maintain a strong lean body. It's called strength training, have you ever seen a fat overweight or skinny fat sprinter ??....If only more people realized the benefits of resistance training and HIT and the benefits of maintaining lean muscle mass. One of the problems is laziness, how many people have enough determination to do difficult unpopular exercises and push themselves really hard in a gym ??...Low calorie diets, treadmills, spin classes just doesn't cut it, it's not enough, it will only lead to "skinny fat syndrome", it will not produce the same long lasting results as strength training. You need to cross train and do a wide variety of different exercises...In order to do strength training and HIT you need a sufficient calorie intake or else you will be able to put in a max effort into your workouts...Loosing fat and keeping it off and maintaining a lean strong body is a lot more complex then just restricting calories and doing endless cardio.

Carbonfiberboy 

Machka was a powerlifter before she was a cyclist. She doesn't toot her horn, which I respect. But of course you're right, as I was alluding to in 106. Gotta head for the gym after dinner: rotator cuff work. Somehow I developed a problem which really came out while benching a few weeks ago. Strength work can be complicated.

It's an odd thing, but most of the overweight people I see with a PT at the gym are female. And good on them! Maybe too many men have ego issues with being told what to do. Then there's my 82 y.o. aunt who hired a PT about a year ago, lifts twice a week, and lost 35 lbs. Perfect example of what you're saying.

My wife has doubled her squat since last fall. Legs! Mine aren't too bad, either. I'm squatting more than I did at 21. I think if I lose 2 more inches off my belly, I'll be at 10%. Down 4, 2 to go.

And since it's This Thread, I'll mention that I need carbs to lift hard. I take a bottle of sports drink to the gym. When I started lifting again 35 years ago, I'd almost pass out just doing 1 set of 10 of everything. Took me a while to figure out that was caused by a drop in blood sugar. Now that I'm in better shape I burn fat better, but still need some carb boost to go heavy or do HIT.

jsk

You're conflating "calories in vs calories out" with "starvation diet and no excercise". They're not the same thing, and you don't have to eat low-carb to avoid being skinny fat (in fact you can eat low carb and still be skinny-fat).

Machka 

Yes, exactly.

One of the reasons calories in < calories out works so well for me is because of all the exercise I'm doing. I might net a relatively low number of calories (lower than what I'm burning), but I am usually eating reasonably well because I'm exercising that much. I'm certainly not on a starvation diet.

In fact, if I suspect that my calorie intake is going to be slightly high, I'll go for a walk, a bicycle ride, I'll run stairs, or lift weights to compensate. Extra motivation to get moving!

Also, we've been focusing on hill-climbing rides on the weekends, plus several hill-climbing walks during the week ... and I'm starting to develop some definition in my quads again. All while doing the CICO thing.


@Carbonfiberboy ... I was actually a bodybuilder.

Rowan is currently working hard in our garage/basement to build a combination storage area, workshop area, and home gym area. It's coming along well, and looking good. When it is ready, I'm planning to include strength training into my workouts more regularly. Right now, I've got weights in our bathroom (which is a huge room), and I do a bit of a workout there, but it will be good to get the rest of the equipment going.

My boss is both a bodybuilder and powerlifter, and we chat now and then about it all. The foods he eats before a bodybuilding competition are actually quite similar to the ones I currently eat.

Bockman

Late to the thread, but enjoyed reading this discussion. Just as an FYI, I have had spectacular results with regard to my personal fitness levels and endurance training utilizing ketogenic nutrition. An excellent source for more info is

[h=3]The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance[/h]by Jeff Volek and Stephen Phinney.

About the book: 'In The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance, we specifically address how a low carbohydrate diet can be used by athletes. In ‘The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living’, we made a strong case for low carbohydrate diets as the preferred approach to managing insulin resistance (aka carbohydrate intolerance). However, on the continuum of insulin resistance, athletes as a group cluster on the side of insulin sensitivity. Thus most athletes do not have anywhere near the same level of carbohydrate intolerance as someone who is overweight with metabolic syndrome or diabetes.

Why then would we recommend a low carbohydrate diet for athletes? After all, the current majority group-think in sports nutrition holds that all athletes have an obligate need for carbohydrate. But despite having the best intentions, the majority view does not always represent the truth. Besides exacerbating insulin resistance, a high carbohydrate diet also locks a person into a dependence on carbohydrate as the dominant fuel for exercise. And every endurance athlete knows what happens to performance when their carbohydrate tank (at best holding 2000 Calories) runs dry – performance goes down in flames. It’s an unfortunate reality that the human body is unable to promptly switch from carbs to fat as its predominant exercise fuel, so once the former is gone, you can’t power your performance with fat (even though a carbohydrate-depleted body still has tens of thousands of fat Calories on hand).

The key fact underlying this book is that you can train your body to burn fat by simply changing your diet over a period of a few weeks, thereby turning blood sugar and glycogen into secondary fuels. Once you make this transition, you can then train harder, perform longer, and recover faster. So the simple answer to why we endorse a low carbohydrate lifestyle for athletes is that this strategy has worked for us and many people we know. More importantly, we have both conducted and published human research that supports this approach, adding to a growing body of literature that now points to the merits of reducing dietary carbohydrates to optimize fat metabolism. We have thus accumulated a unique knowledge base that we want to share so you too may experience it for yourself.'

In my cycling, I have periodically over the years experienced bonk several times. After making this transition that's never happened and my endurance is remarkably even-keeled throughout the duration of a ride.

rms13

According to who? I've done great on a paleo type diet with 50-100g carbs per day while riding 50-100 miles per week. I also did great on that diet when I used to train muay Thai and jiu jitsu which is much more demanding than cycling is

GatsbyGlen

I went from 200 to 145 in a year following Wheat Belly. I try to keep my carb intake to no more than 50g per day. After about 6 months into the diet change (or lifestyle) I started biking and running again. I never took biking seriously before, just a comfy beach cruiser type bike. Now I have road bike I try to get 50 miles per week, sometimes it's 75, sometimes it's less. I'm certainly not the fastest and/or strongest biker, but I look and feel pretty damn good for 42

DaveLeeNC

I downloaded the book and (quickly) read through it. For the record I have been on a low carb diet for several years now. When all is said and done my basic impression of what I read (maybe scanned is more appropriate) is that if you have a insulin issue then this diet has real value. And if you are doing ultra endurance stuff (5+ hours at a time) there is real value.

Other than that it is not at all clear to me that it matters a whole lot in the end. I have stayed with it because, for me, I seem to be able to better manage my weight using this style of diet. But beyond that for me and my life I don't see it as a big deal. Maybe for the occasional century ride (where I would be targeting around 5.5 hours) the assumed improved fat utilization might be helpful.

dave

Zeppelin

I lost 15kg using Atkins so far this year. While on the diet I completed 10 weeks of Chris Carmichael's Time Crunched Cyclist Program (new century). I got A LOT faster thanks to the high intensity intervals.

For the first week or so I bonked after 45 mins or so of riding but after that I could ride further and faster without bonking. I can easily ride for hours before breakfast.

I suspect I could have gone faster and got more out of the TCC program if I was eating more carbs and it certainly isn't optimal for competition.

But in my experience it is possible to lose weight, feel healthier, and improve speed as a cyclist using a low carb diet.

IMO I am swayed by the theory that insulin us the prime driver in obesity. Low carb diet=very little hunger or cravings for me.

I still have about 15Kg to lose and I think being overweight is a far bigger inpediment to enjoying my cycling than a low carb diet is. I will get there.

RR3

You can still bonk when fat adapted but you will not feel the craziness in your head because the brain will burn ketones just fine. However, your power output will be impaired depending on output level but to a lessor extent compared to pre adaptaption.

Sixty Fiver

Reduced calorie (crash) diets don't work in the long term and lasting results require lifestyle changes and moderate dietary changes that you can sustain for a lifetime.

The average North American eats far too much sugar and refined foods, that is pretty clear and is backed by a great deal of study... ditching those is a good start.

It is a lot easier for middle aged guys to maintain their health as we don't have to deal with the same hormonal changes women do and a lot of folks miss this or ignore the impact that hormones have on our metabolism.

Just spent a few weeks with my mother in law who has been following a lower carb diet for the past year, she is 67 and has never looked better... she was not able to make any good progress until she dealt with some low thyroid issues (normal for a post menopausal woman) and now her energy levels are off the hook and she's looking pretty curvaceous to boot.

My aunt turned 85 today and she has been lower carb for at least 5 years... she can still run circles around folks half her age.

Sixty Fiver

Amazing what happens when you stop flipping that insulin switch all day long.

bikebreak

Agree. The conventional wisdom is typicall wrong. This month new studies showed that skipping breakfast is actually better for weight loss. Salt is ok too.
This year the government finally admitted that dietary cholesterol isn't the driver of high serum cholesterol, but sugar might be.

From https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/21/op...at-to-eat.html
"Uncertain science should no longer guide our nutrition policy. Indeed, cutting fat and cholesterol, as Americans have conscientiously done, may have even worsened our health. In clearing our plates of meat and eggs (fat and protein), we ate more grains, pasta and starchy vegetables (carbohydrates). Over the past 50 years, we cut fat intake by 25 percent and increased carbohydrates by more than 30 percent, according to a new analysis of government data. Yet recent science has increasingly shown that a high-carb diet rich in sugar and refined grains increases the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease — much more so than a diet high in fat and cholesterol."

this is also apropos:
Health Tip: Ignore Government Dietary Advice | National Review Online

Nikephoros

Name one Pro Tour cyclist on a low carb diet. I'll wait. There are no professional athletes in any sport that I know of who go on sustained ketogenic low carb diets. Granted, you don't have to model your life after a pro tour level cyclist and their habits, but when people claim to be strong super fit endurance athletes on a strict low carb diet they are either lying or lying.

DaveLeeNC

I don't know if you are responding to a specific quote here or just making a general statement. But I would say that looking at how athletes who for weeks at a time burn 6-8000 calories per day via exercise and extrapolating how they eat to 'the rest of us' is iffy at best.

I think the general point here in this thread is that despite the common view that a typical very low carb diet is HORRIBLE, maybe it is not so horrible and maybe even it isn't a inhibitor to good cycling performance as 'done by the masses who are kind of serious about it'.

dave

Mr Grinch

Read Grant Peterson's new book.

We aren't talking about pro cycling here, this is about someone pursuing general fitness.

I am a late fifties ex college athlete and after years of following the calorie counting US Gov recommended diet with the typical cyclical results, found consistency by minimizing carbs and eating fat. Paleo, low carb, whatever. Be reasonable, but the problem seems to excessive carbs in the typical (US anyway) diet. Just look around, whatever the typical American is doing isn't working, and that includes a lot of recreational riders, weight lifters and weekend warriors.

Best wishes for your success.

wolfchild

The biggest problem is that majority of the population are not pro athletes and yet they are following a high carb diet of a pro athlete. People who don't expand enough energy in their daily life are eating like somebody who is riding a Pro Tour or doing and ironmen. This thread wasn't even about ketogenic diets it was about lowering your carb intake and not about eliminating all carbs from ones diet.

Sixty Fiver

Low carb for me is 100 grams per day or less and that is all comes in the form of healthy vegetables, nuts, and a little fruit... my wife has thyroid issues and was flirting with metabolic syndrome because of this but a very low carb diet has brought her back to a state of optimal health.

Just popped some steaks in the oven... my friend raises range fed Highland cattle and these are going to be good beyond belief.

Figure I will saute some beans in a little fresh lard as a side dish.