|
What does "balance" mean?
Were all for balance, everyone of us but what balance means is at the heart of our differing arguments. Here's a good article on the subject of macronutrient levels/balance, http://www.westonaprice.org/basicnut...rientland.html When I say that I have a high fat diet I haven't tallied anything up so that I can say what my macronutrient ratio's are. I'm just being honest because you only have to have a little fat in your diet to blow away the supposedly desirable level of 30%. Volume wise fats have a lot of calories at 9 calories per gram while protein and carbohydrates are only 4 calories per gram. Now it gets better. Fats don't have much in the way of water or fibre in them so a gram of fat is pretty much a gram of fat. Carbohydrates and protein on the other hand have water and fibre in them so a gram isn't a gram when your counting calories. So a protein/fat/carbohydrate ratio of say 30/30/40 while seeming to be perfectly reasonable and balanced isn't what it seems. To have as little as 30% fat in your diet is to eat like a sparrow and isn't as balanced as it seems. If your someone who beleives that they eat a balanced diet that includes plenty of carbohydrates and a healthy but not excessive amount of fats whether it be butter or olive oil then you may be supprised to learn that your consuming way more than 30% of your calories from fat. Regards, Anthony |
|
Originally Posted by Javelina
I went back a reread the article. I'm not sure how you think I misunderstand it. It further states:
"Soybean meal is the main product from soybean processing, and is the primary protein source in livestock feed. U.S. domestic soybean meal consumption reached a record high of 28 million metric tons in 1997 (the latest data available), an increase of 4 percent over 1996 and 32 percent over 1986. In the past decade, annual consumption growth of soybean meal averaged 3.2 percent a year, compared to an annual production growth of soybeans of 4.5 percent. Total domestic soybean meal consumption accounts for about 80 percent of the domestic soybean meal production, and this percentage has remained fairly constant in the past decade. The USDA projects the annual consumption growth will slow down to 2 percent in the coming decade, quite a drop from the above- mentioned 3.2 percent for the past decade." "Soybean oil is the second major product from soybean processing, and has been used mostly as edible oil. It is the largest source of edible fats and oils in the world. Soybean oil accounts for 82 percent of all edible oils produced in the U.S. About 96 percent of the domestically consumed soybean oil is used for cooking and salad oil, shortening, margarines, and other food uses." Soy meal is number 1, soy oil is number 2; according to the article. Go back and reread it yourself and see if it is you or me with the problem interpreting the results. Using land to grass feed cattle in the US is a primarily a cow-calf operation. Cattle are then taken to feed lots for fattening. The hog operations are confinement. They use soy to supplement protien and to speed hogs to market. Dairy operation will really change a crop mix in an area. I've seen whole areas switch from one type of crop to another in order to supply very large dairies. There are dairies that have as many as 5000 cattle on each one. Dairy cattle fed on free-range (at least in the western US) is not practicable. The reasons dairy are locating here is that the climate is better for year round production. There is no way that dairy cattle can be sustained on the dry western ranges. II. Domestic consumption of soybeans and soybean products More than two-thirds of U.S. soybean production is consumed domestically, primarily in crushing and feed use. Since the early 1980’s, domestic consumption of soybeans has increased by 43 percent, reaching 1.8 billion bushels in 1997. Domestic soybean utilization includes crushing, feed, seed, food, and industrial or non-food uses. The annual rate of increase of aggregated consumption averaged 3 percent in the past two decades. However, in the next 10 years, the annual rate of increase will slow down to about 1.5 percent, based on the forecast by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Crushing" means oil production. The article is a bit of propoganda anyway so you need some background knowledge. Oil is what they make there money out of. Animal feed is all well and good and maybe VOLUME wise the soy meal is larger. This would make sense but the most econimicaly important aspect is oil. Remember these are public documents and there in the business of selling there product. They want to boost sales of soy meal so there not going to say anything bad about it are they? The Weston A Price Foundation is against big feedlot operations on many grounds and is in support of more local farmers. There are numerous issues to be dealt with but its primarily about going back to the way God/Mother Nature intended. Regards, Anthony |
Originally Posted by AnthonyG
Here's another quote from the article.
II. Domestic consumption of soybeans and soybean products More than two-thirds of U.S. soybean production is consumed domestically, primarily in crushing and feed use. Since the early 1980’s, domestic consumption of soybeans has increased by 43 percent, reaching 1.8 billion bushels in 1997. Domestic soybean utilization includes crushing, feed, seed, food, and industrial or non-food uses. The annual rate of increase of aggregated consumption averaged 3 percent in the past two decades. However, in the next 10 years, the annual rate of increase will slow down to about 1.5 percent, based on the forecast by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Crushing" means oil production. The article is a bit of propoganda anyway so you need some background knowledge. Oil is what they make there money out of. Animal feed is all well and good and maybe VOLUME wise the soy meal is larger. This would make sense but the most econimicaly important aspect is oil. Remember these are public documents and there in the business of selling there product. They want to boost sales of soy meal so there not going to say anything bad about it are they? The Weston A Price Foundation is against big feedlot operations on many grounds and is in support of more local farmers. There are numerous issues to be dealt with but its primarily about going back to the way God/Mother Nature intended. Regards, Anthony "The numbers are amazing when looking at the percentages of growth in demand for soybeans, corn, wheat and cotton since 1990. Globally, soybean demand has grown almost 80 percent over that period. Corn demand has grown by 30 percent. Wheat and cotton demand has grown less than 10 percent. “The reason for this is that incomes are rising around the world. That means more consuming of beef, poultry, pork and fish. Consequently, more soybean meal is needed to produce those things. This is also the driving force behind soybean acres going into South America at such a rapid pace. Poultry and pork consumption are growing the fastest and by 2015, global poultry consumption will pass pork. That will be important to growers because chickens eat a whole lot of soybeans,” says Baize. “Even with the extra acres that have been planted, we're still going to see a carryout this year that will be at rock bottom. In my opinion, I don't think carryout will be more than 100 million bushels.” Soybean meal consumption is up 86 percent in the last 12 years. Consumption of meal shows an average of around 5 million tons of growth in demand annually. In that period, there wasn't one year that global demand didn't grow. Soybean oil consumption is also interesting, says Baize. For the most part, soybean oil is a by-product of soybean meal production. When meal is produced, the oil is left over. Soybean oil normally finds its way into the market by pricing it's way there. Very seldom do you see soybeans being crushed for the oil content although there are some rare exceptions like in India and China." http://southeastfarmpress.com/mag/fa...ion/index.html Soy meal is the primary product and it is being used to increase animal protien production. Small production family farms cannot compete with the tastes of consumers. Consumers want to eat their protien with lots of fat, they want to be able to eat it and get skinny. They want it at a low price and until the 'prophets' of the low carb craze cannot sell their message to the masses this trend will continue and we will get fatter and fatter and follow whoever is telling us we can eat all we want of the fat we want and be skinny. Whether or not there is a conspiracy is not for me to decide. What I see is all arouond us. Image makers selling beauty and skinny, big food industry making over processed food to 'add value' to primary products and creating a 'need'. Over-busy consumers with too much stress, debt, worry and no time buying these products and wondering why they are fat. A perfect set-up for the pied pipers of easy getting skinny who want to sell us their ideas (they want their share of this big pie) and it is hard to tell who is driving what or if there are just a bunch of smart guys all finding a way to make their own money in the process by preying on human nature. |
Originally Posted by lillypad
Low-carb is not "new", it is just that it fell by the wayside for a long time and people have recently caught onto it again. It was around more than 30 years ago. It was just then people didn't have a clue as to the fact that some fats are better than others. (They were still cooking their baked goods using lard ).
Your brain is the only part of your body that truly needs glucose in order to function. The rest of the body can use ketones (the product of fat breakdown) as its source of energy and very quickly starts using them as soon as you go on this type of diet. There are plenty of low-carbo veggies out there that you can use as a fiber source. If these concepts were not true, then everyone that has tried lo-carb dieting would be dead by now, having had no energy source in order to survive. Wow. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Your brain is not the only organ that needs glucose (how about your liver?) Also, let me help clarify how a person eating low carb, doesn't die. Our bodies are wonderful dynamic things, so much so that we can produce glucose from various sources (think fat and protein) via processes such as gluconeogenisis and glycolysis. However, both of these safety nets occur "on demand", ketones are the byproduct of this. To the dismay of many a low carb dieter, our bodies don't "make some and store it for later" ensuring that a low carb dieter won't break any land speed records. To make matters worse, the constant state of dehydration and inability of load your muscle with glycogen, essential for cycling, spells bad news (I won't get into the increase prevelence of diagnosis such as kindey stones, gall stones, bowel obstructions,etc..). The diet is a fad for a reason and is waayy more difficult to follow that the USDA guidlines. The truth was spoken earlier in this thread. People eat way too much fast food, exercise too little and don't follow the already established recommendations. |
Well regarding the question of where most of the soy goes I will have to admit that I'm getting conflicting information from the WAPF site. One article say's this and another article say's something different. I will try e-mailing someone at some stage.
However WAPF is against feeding soy to livestock so the question is a bit academic. You may think that soy is essential or the whole thing will fall down and here I will disagree. I live in Australia and while some cattle is feedlot fed there's still a LOT of cattle around here on grass. I live near the city edge so I've got cattle grazing only a few Km's from me. All the chicken around is unfortunately fed grain, even the supposedly free range organic ones so I don't eat chicken 99% of the time. Humans raised animals before soy and they will raise animals after soy. Soy is a tempory exploration down a wrong turn. If we want to learn how to do things right we need to study the master. Mother Nature/God and not beleive that we know better. Same with the diet question. We should have studied the master before we started thinking that we knew better because we don't. Regards, Anthony |
Originally Posted by Javelina
I disagree:
Soy meal is the primary product and it is being used to increase animal protien production. Small production family farms cannot compete with the tastes of consumers. Consumers want to eat their protien with lots of fat, they want to be able to eat it and get skinny. They want it at a low price and until the 'prophets' of the low carb craze cannot sell their message to the masses this trend will continue and we will get fatter and fatter and follow whoever is telling us we can eat all we want of the fat we want and be skinny. Whether or not there is a conspiracy is not for me to decide. What I see is all arouond us. Image makers selling beauty and skinny, big food industry making over processed food to 'add value' to primary products and creating a 'need'. Over-busy consumers with too much stress, debt, worry and no time buying these products and wondering why they are fat. A perfect set-up for the pied pipers of easy getting skinny who want to sell us their ideas (they want their share of this big pie) and it is hard to tell who is driving what or if there are just a bunch of smart guys all finding a way to make their own money in the process by preying on human nature. It's too much. We need science but science is embarrased by the fact that its been siting on its hands all this time. It let the genie out of the bottle (low fat dogma) but was also too embarassed to tell us when the the evidence didn't materialise. Regards, Anthony |
Originally Posted by Ramjm_2000
(I won't get into the increase prevelence of diagnosis such as kindey stones, gall stones, bowel obstructions,etc..).
please dont, because it isnt true, there's not a bit of science behind these notions, nor most of the rest of your post... |
Originally Posted by WarrenG
Mr Freddy- You have in fact had very limited success losing weight on your diet. 29 pounds down to 201 pounds for 6' tall after four years? Given the amount of bodyfat you had and still have, you could be losing bodyfat just as well by exercising and eating a reasonably good diet of many types.
The support for what I've said about physiology is easily available by looking at PUBMED and there are literally dozens of studies supporting what I've said. So far I haven't received even one from you that supports reasonable exercise with the diet you preach. The other thing is that you exercise at very low intensity, as does the Stu guy. Perhaps if you also exercise at a similar low intensity for 6 hours each day you can have results similar to his. However, if you only have 5-10 hours a week, for example, then you can improve your fitness and weight loss far more with higher intensity than what Stu is doing, and what you are currently doing. You mentioned that you exercise at 60% of MHR (if you actually know what your MHR is). That is a veeeery low intensity. 60% of MHR is below what a real athlete would do during an easy recovery day. ~70% of MHR is fairly common. The "study" from 20 years ago that you mentioned yesterday was conducted using similarly low intensities (62-64% of VO2max). It's worth noting that the cyclists did not get any fitter during the 4 weeks of training during the study. Their ability at this very low intensity stayed the same-something that would be possible with practically any diet over such a short term when training continues. The goal is to improve is it not? For a trained cyclist the exercise intensity in the test is at, or below a level of intensity that would lead to improvements-so not a reasonable way to evaluate a diet for trained athletes. It sounds like you have bought into the misleading idea of the "fat burning zone." It is true that you can burn a higher percentage of fat relative to carbs at low intensities, but at higher intensities up to near 80-85% of MHR you can burn more total fat calories than while exercising in the "fat burning zone". The higher intensities will also encourage an elevation of your BMR. 60% intensity would have a minimal training effect and would be far below what is possible from higher intensity. I invite you to do some research on your own about the many benefits of exercising more in the range of 70-85% of MHR (even though MHR is a fairly poor measure of actual exercise intensity). For starters, have a look at the two tables on this webpage that shows the various adaptations at various exercise intensities. http://www.cyclingpeakssoftware.com/levels.html Since you mentioned the want for a "solid base", a few days a week of about 2 hours at the intensity range near 70-75% of MHR is the most effective way for most people to develop the physiological adaptations commonly associated with "base" training. Exercising below that intensity will not cause nearly as much training stimulus as you could be achieving at the higher intensity. In addition to this training you could do another 2+ days a week of weights if you like but you'll burn more fat off and improve your aerobic fitness more by doing some fairly easy intervals near 75-80% of your MHR. so you are recommending that a sedentary person at age 49 who is at least 20 pounds overweight hit the gym and start pounding it out at 70 - 75% intensity, right from the get-go. reallly? if you were my trainer, I'd fire you on the spot, ha haaa.... anyway, I realize the benefits of exercising at higher intensity levels, for one thing, I simply like to do it, it feels great. but not till I prep my (slightly) old bones with several weeks of lower intensity work. I have no opinion on the "fat buring zone" issue, but I'll let you know if low intensity work for a couple hours per day has any effect on my weight, in a few months from now. |
Originally Posted by Jarery
I dont get it. If your way is so much better, and the way humans are 'meant to be' according to you, WHY do you have to resort to the 'evil' carb way in order to do anything that requires actual energy expenditure ? You ride at a 60% heart rate ? I think my hrm shuts off at that low of a rate.
I doubt that our ancestors the caveman you keep talking about told his wife there would be no meat for 3 days cause he neded to 'carb up' before he chased one down. I use a balanced diet. You told me that is evil since people cant stay on it, and your way is better casue they feel less hungry. But you talk about how you fall off the wagon over holidays etc. Except my balanced diet is not somethign that I fall off of. Becasue i can eat everything. There is no extremes in my way of living. The only extreme is I dont eat anythign in excess. I dont force my body in certain states by cutting off whole food chains. I eat from all of them. And the reason why people ask you how your doing personally instead of just reading your favorite hyperlinked website. Because otherwise its just a web site. I can scour the net and find web sites promoting both sides of every argument in history dang near. We landed on the moon, we didnt land on the moon, the holocost happened, it didnt happen, carbs are good, carbs are bad...... Untill you yourself show it works 100% your just someone whos bought into one web sites theory and are now pushing it like a bible thumper, and it hasnt even worked for you yet. I base my eating philosohy on common sense. And guess what, im not 'working at it' like you are. I dont fall off the wagon over holidays, and I am at my so called bmi target weight. Guess i win cause mine actually works instead of just pointing to a website that claims it works. Cause you know, everythign you read on the internet is true. |
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
you got a point about the net, but still, indulge me, why not google the following athletes, whose experiencs disprove just about everything you vehement anti low carbers claim: stuart middleman, stuart trager, anthony colpo.
|
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
you got a point about the net, but still, indulge me, why not google the following athletes, whose experiencs disprove just about everything you vehement anti low carbers claim: stuart middleman, stuart trager, anthony colpo.
.. Secondly. Wow, you can name 3 atheletes who perform with low carb diets. So if i google the millions of atheletes who perform with high carb diets im to ignore those ? No one is going to convince the other their wrong. I say we meet back here in 350 years and see who was right. |
Originally Posted by Jarery
First, im not an anti-low carber. Im anti extreme-anything. All the diets that force people to follow strict percentages and eliminate whole categories of healthy foods. Low car, no carb, no fat, green only, etc. I dont vehemently claim you cant do anything. Your the one who said you couldnt do a race without dropping your own touted diet for a high carb one for 3 days. I mearly state a balanced diet of healthy choices is better than any diet that is more narrow focused one.
Secondly. Wow, you can name 3 atheletes who perform with low carb diets. So if i google the millions of atheletes who perform with high carb diets im to ignore those ? No one is going to convince the other their wrong. I say we meet back here in 350 years and see who was right. |
From the research thats been done and the facts presented by both sides I see it as this. Low carb or low fat is a healthy way to go if your body is on good shape. The problem seems to be, and the evidence supports this: is if one is overwieght because they eat too much carbs or fat that they are putting themselves at risk for all sorts of diseases related to obesity. We can all find studies that support our point of view that one is better than the other. I have read of professional body builders that will only consume plant materials, and I have heard of ultra marathoners that eat primairly lean meats. I think that this goes to show that both ways can be used to support a healthy life style; the main problem is being over weight.
I have lost weight moderating my fat intake and increasing good carbs, such as fruits and vegtables. Yet other people have had success decreasing carbs. And others will eat no meat. At the beginning of this thread I thought that low carbing was bad. But this seems not to be the case. I do not agree with it because it does not work for me. What I do agree with is losing weight so that the effects of obesity are not going to cause me ill. I think when it comes to health as related to this subject that obesity or lack of is the major health determinant. If you choose to look at the subject of low fat and low carbs whithout the tint of your personal bias you may see that there are scientific claims that support and refute both sides. But what the science seems to confirm in all cases is that is better to be healthy then obese. And that obesity is the cause of IHD, diabetes melitus, PVD and all other sorts of things that seem to be related to being obese. Thank you |
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
so you are recommending that a sedentary person at age 49 who is at least 20 pounds overweight hit the gym and start pounding it out at 70 - 75% intensity, right from the get-go. reallly? if you were my trainer, I'd fire you on the spot, ha haaa....
If a trainer told me to use an antiquated measure of exertion like % of MHR I'd fire them on the spot. I'd tell you all the reasons but they would be lost on you. Let us know if you're still exercising 7 hours a week 2 months from now, with at least 2 hours of that time at an intensity above 75% of your MHR. Expert beginner. An oxymoron. |
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
so you are recommending that a sedentary person at age 49 who is at least 20 pounds overweight hit the gym and start pounding it out at 70 - 75% intensity, .
|
Originally Posted by WarrenG
I didn't realize you were in such bad physical condition and still very much a beginner, which is what you are if you can't even handle 70% of MHR. It's more obvious now whay you'd cling to a diet that is far from optimal for a person who exercises regularly. You are a sedentary person so you can survive with a diet that could be appropriate for such a person.
If a trainer told me to use an antiquated measure of exertion like % of MHR I'd fire them on the spot. I'd tell you all the reasons but they would be lost on you. Let us know if you're still exercising 7 hours a week 2 months from now, with at least 2 hours of that time at an intensity above 75% of your MHR. Expert beginner. An oxymoron. there you go with the insulting tone again.... you really are a cranky s.o.b., arent you? I'm not in THAT bad of shape... just erring on the side of caution. for one thing I'm getting myself into the habit of working out 6 days a week, without fail. I used to try for 5, maybe get 4, or 3..., and let it slip for a week or two or three... and I'm hitting closer to 15 hours a week, not 7. I'll survive just fine with my diet, I dont know when I'll be at 75%, dont really care... in fact, I'm not completely sure of my MHR, I'd have to hit it all out for a few minutes to find out, and I think it's wise to wait to try that till I'm in better shape. for now I'll use that age based forumla, plus my own gut feel. and again, my specific case has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of the low carb approach for athletes. |
Originally Posted by WarrenG
I didn't realize you were in such bad physical condition and still very much a beginner, which is what you are if you can't even handle 70% of MHR. .
btw, I am pretty sure I could handle 70% easily, but possibly not for two hours a day... as it is, I'm in week 3 and already feeling the urge to bump it up a bit... |
Originally Posted by Jarery
Id recomend that a sedentary person at age 49 who is at least 20 pounds overweight and is unable to exercise at 70-75% intensity NOT go to a forum filled with thousands of people who race and train daily, and have for years, and tell them they are eating wrong.
although I was just backing up the original poster in this thread, who announced he intended to low carb and cycle, and who was promptly jumped on by loads of people who race and train daily and have for years... people who so far have only provided easily debunkable myths and legends to support their arguments. |
Originally Posted by mrfreddy
although I was just backing up the original poster in this thread, who announced he intended to low carb and cycle, and who was promptly jumped on by loads of people who race and train daily and have for years... people who so far have only provided easily debunkable myths and legends to support their arguments.
In six months of low calorie dieting he lost nearly 80 lbs. He then eased back into a more balanced approach to eating. He continued to improve his fitness, and as soon as he had lost enough weight to be comfortable on a bike he started cycling. Within the next year he did the annual Seattle to Portland ride (200+ miles in a day) as stoker on a tandem. Fast forward about 10 years. He's a category 2 racing cyclist, and on this fine day in January he is drawing quickly near to his race weight of 153 lbs. He rode over 12,000 miles in 2005. He placed well in several races last season, and might upgrade this year. If the OP wants a proven method to lose weight and get really, really fit, voilá. The path has been set. It's a path that requires willpower and discipline (unlike "eat anything you want" fad diets) and intrinsic motivation (unlike "get praise for success and shame for failure" post-on-the-internet schemes). But it works, and it's grounded in the best understanding of our finest scientists and doctors. What else do you want? |
Originally Posted by alison_in_oh
Lawdy. You make no sense. Is personal anectdotal evidence all you value? How about the guy who was 5'10", 240 lbs. in his late teens. He decided to make a change so he studied biochemistry, learned fat metabolism, and chose a low-fat, high-fiber, low-calorie diet. He simultaneously started to exercise. When he started, he ran one block and puked. The next day he ran two blocks before puking.
In six months of low calorie dieting he lost nearly 80 lbs. He then eased back into a more balanced approach to eating. He continued to improve his fitness, and as soon as he had lost enough weight to be comfortable on a bike he started cycling. Within the next year he did the annual Seattle to Portland ride (200+ miles in a day) as stoker on a tandem. Fast forward about 10 years. He's a category 2 racing cyclist, and on this fine day in January he is drawing quickly near to his race weight of 153 lbs. He rode over 12,000 miles in 2005. He placed well in several races last season, and might upgrade this year. If the OP wants a proven method to lose weight and get really, really fit, voilá. The path has been set. It's a path that requires willpower and discipline (unlike "eat anything you want" fad diets) and intrinsic motivation (unlike "get praise for success and shame for failure" post-on-the-internet schemes). But it works, and it's grounded in the best understanding of our finest scientists and doctors. What else do you want? Sounds way too hard. Please pass the bacon. I gotta fuel up for my "workout". |
Originally Posted by WarrenG
Sounds way too hard. Please pass the bacon. I gotta fuel up for my "workout".
ah, we have the "low carb is bad because it's easy" argument. yes, low carbing is easier, because you are giving you body what it wants, nutritious animal fats and protein, along with some healthy low carb vegetables, and even some fruit. Your body rewards you by turning off the hunger switch. in fact, every low carber I know reports that he/she feels pretty damn good. almost all the time. and this is somehow a bad thing? |
Originally Posted by alison_in_oh
Lawdy. You make no sense. Is personal anectdotal evidence all you value? How about the guy who was 5'10", 240 lbs. in his late teens. He decided to make a change so he studied biochemistry, learned fat metabolism, and chose a low-fat, high-fiber, low-calorie diet. He simultaneously started to exercise. When he started, he ran one block and puked. The next day he ran two blocks before puking.
In six months of low calorie dieting he lost nearly 80 lbs. He then eased back into a more balanced approach to eating. He continued to improve his fitness, and as soon as he had lost enough weight to be comfortable on a bike he started cycling. Within the next year he did the annual Seattle to Portland ride (200+ miles in a day) as stoker on a tandem. Fast forward about 10 years. He's a category 2 racing cyclist, and on this fine day in January he is drawing quickly near to his race weight of 153 lbs. He rode over 12,000 miles in 2005. He placed well in several races last season, and might upgrade this year. If the OP wants a proven method to lose weight and get really, really fit, voilá. The path has been set. It's a path that requires willpower and discipline (unlike "eat anything you want" fad diets) and intrinsic motivation (unlike "get praise for success and shame for failure" post-on-the-internet schemes). But it works, and it's grounded in the best understanding of our finest scientists and doctors. What else do you want? this takes us back to OP's original scenario. he is 80 pounds overweight and decides to follow low carb plan and cycle to drop the weight and to get fit. yes, he could follow a low fat plan, and achieve the exact same results, weight wise, as he would with a low carb plan. although I'm not sure the exercise would be enough to counter the problems associated with a high carb diet - bonking, low HDL, high triglycerides, blood sugar spikes and subsequent drops that lead to increased hunger, insulin spikes that cause you to store any dietary fat you dont manage to burn off, not to mention that a high carb diet is associated with diabetes, heart disease, cancer, alzheimers..etc. etc... or he could choose a low carb diet. the only real drawback is a slight drop in power during sprints. that's it. none of the other knocks on low carbing you find in this thread actually hold up under scrutiny. for OP, it seems a simple choice. he really just wants to lose wt. and get fit. he's not out to win races. therefore, everyone telling him he is making a mistake chosing low carb is simply wrong. case closed. |
mr freddy wrote:
"...or he could choose a low carb diet. the only real drawback is a slight drop in power during sprints. that's it. " Not that you'll ever get it, but I already explained in previous posts in great detail how your body requires glycogen/glucose to perform at least reasonably well at intensities far below a "sprint". BTW, if your "trainer" has you doing 11+ hours a week at 60% like you claim, you're wasting a LOT of time. I guess you and your trainer belong together. Get back to us when you've done a few months of actual training and not that 60% of MHR that you think is actual aerobic training. mr freddy, an expert beginner. The oxy-moron. |
Originally Posted by WarrenG
mr freddy wrote:
"...or he could choose a low carb diet. the only real drawback is a slight drop in power during sprints. that's it. " Not that you'll ever get it, but I already explained in previous posts in great detail how your body requires glycogen/glucose to perform at least reasonably well at intensities far below a "sprint". BTW, if your "trainer" has you doing 11+ hours a week at 60% like you claim, you're wasting a LOT of time. I guess you and your trainer belong together. Get back to us when you've done a few months of actual training and not that 60% of MHR that you think is actual aerobic training. mr freddy, an expert beginner. The oxy-moron. you know what warren? go f*** yourself. can't you make your argument without insults? doesnt say much for the points you want to express. you explained in great erroneous detail. lets see the studies. and no "it's all on pubmed" nonsense. post actual honest to god studies, and make sure the study involves athletes who have been given adequate time to adjust to a high fat diet. there have been several studies posted that contradict your claims, than any reasonable objective reader would have to admit suggest the possibility that an athlete can do just fine on a low carb diet. you prefer to nitpick and dismiss them for petty reasons. as for my own training, irrelevant as it is, I figured out yesterday that I've been training just above the 70% level, using the age based estimate anyway. I dont use a trainer, I know from personal experience that if I start out cold and try to exert myself above that level I would be risking injury. To advise anyone differently would be irresponsible. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:11 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.