Proper Way to Eat Low Carb?

[quote]toocul4u wrote:
It’s disturbing that you recognize the genetic control of metabolism that exists, and then blanket human biochemistry with the antiquated statement “exercise and controlled calorie diets are the solution” you really invalidated yourself in that statement I think.
[/quote]

Don’t understand your critique.

Humans have a unique suite of biological adaptations: enlarged brains, bipedalism, thick enamel, hands, reliance on sight and color vision, reduced long intestine… all these have to do with locating and retrieving food. Again, this is based on deep evolutionary time.

Bottom line is, the human body was made to move, to eat nutrient dense foods (i.e. - we can’t ferment fiber and other high bulk foods for energy since we don’t have an advanced long intestine), and to store nutrients as well as possible. This is because high quality foods tend to be mobile in both time (seasonal) and space (long distances separate them).

This is why “exercise and controlled calorie diets are the solution” makes sense for today’s industrialized societies.

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:
As a former track runner who would live off of a high carb diet, now a bodybuilder who has to watch his macronutrients more than his calories, I find it difficult to buy into the ‘metabolism is genetic’ theory. [/quote]

Well, it is. It’s not a theory. All aspects of metabolism are under genetic control

Agreed. And I want to offer my apology for being pretentious. It really wasn’t my intention to dismiss you. I also agree that science isn’t everything and that experience should never be minimized.

lol agreed again. Seriously, these are excellent points. I’d like to think I’m in the last category,too, but I’ve definitely spent an enormous amount of time in the other two.

My only contention is that, like you had said above, a lot of people throw terms around and make really unwise recommendations to people. I jumped to a conclusion with your statement. My bad.

[quote] ANY DIET will eventually stop yielding results. I’ve always maintained that there are 2 great truths in bodybuilding…
1- ANything NEW (diet or training wise) will create some sort of change (sometimes positive, sometimes negative) for a while
2- Nothing will yield results for long before the body adapts.

I think there’s been enough study and writing by people ‘in the know’ (not biologists, but strength coaches and the like) to show that a calorie is not a calorie. Meaning? It’s not just about eating submaintenance amounts of calories to lose weight. If that were true, you could eat a low amount of nothing but carbs for weeks on end. You might lose weight, but you’d look like shit. When I cut, I don’t even count calories, merely adjust my macro breakdown , and every 5 days, throw in a refeed to prevent adaptation.

I also do ZERO CARDIO so as to hold onto as much LBM as I can (This works FOR ME! not guarenteeing it will for everyone). I’ve taken loads of courses in kinesiology, sports medicine, all sorts of stuff (real college classes, not the ACE classes), but in my real world experience, it doesn’t always translate. I can’t tell you how many doctors or nutritionists honestly don’t know the first thing about losing fat. [/quote]

You are speaking the truth. And I agree, it’s not just about submaintenance.

IMO, spikes should be implemented when: (a) gym, cognitive, social performance drop, or (b) there is a stagnation in scale weight and/or mirror appearance, or (c) both A and B.

My main point is that ketogenic diets, even those with weekly carb-ups, can be difficult to follow due to brain reward circuitry, adipose-negative feedback signals, and, basically, jonesing for carbs.

Let’s not jump to conclusions like that. There is now evidence that australopithecines (precursors to Homo) may have been digging for underground storage organs (i.e. - tubers). Heck, chimps do it and not even as a backup source of energy.

[quote]Oh yeah, nice to see that this thread hasn’t turned nasty yet -lol. EVerytime an intellectual conversation starts, one guys throws a ‘look at my credentials’ shot and all shit breaks loose. COngrats on the MA Oval, but unless people see you walk the walk, it doesn’t impress too many people (got two Masters myself, and neither one contributed to my build)
S
[/quote]

Understood. Again, didn’t mean to come off pretentious. It was more a jab at “experts” and their interpretations of studies, etc. Most people can’t maintain diets due to the inability to sustain them. Does this make them weak? Probably. Is the physiological drive to not sustain a diet there? Probably.

I don’t want to be categorized as a high carb guy or make this a high carb vs low carb debate. I just don’t think very low carb is a good long term solution.

A question for the OP - why 5-7% as a goal? I would think you’d be way below the “anabolic window” by that point. Or put another way, is there any consensus on the “ideal” starting point for bulking? I’ve read in the neighborhood of 12% is where the body is most anabolic.

Woooo, what a debate. This could go on for quite some time. I am entirely open to EVERYONES opinion to exactly what works with each different LOW CARB diet.

I personally made GREAT progress once I switched to eating ONLY trace carbs throughout the day, with my calories coming from 75% good fats, 25% saturated, protein, and amino acids(especially aroung training time)=KETOGENIC DIET. I did use the ONE whole carb day a week carb up, but this simply slowed down my progress really…so I switched to ONE bid carb up meal. The fat loss certainly speed up, and I muscle mass was/is still up. The only cardio I did, was low intensity and quite alot really. I dieted for a total of 33 weeks dead strict btw, taking 2 1 week breaks and the 10 and 20 week marks.

This can get sooo confusing for many as the OP has said, because there are so many different opinions on what is the best approach etc…I think in the end, he/you will only know once you give it a serious shot…ANY of the diet styles recommended, whether it be KETOGENIC, AD etc…

Try a targeted carbs diet approach, with carbs around training time ONLY with the rest of the calories coming from fat and protein. Also, have a carb up day or meal depending on progress AND reaction.

If you are only in the low teens, it shouldn’t take too long to hit single digits…GOODLUCK BRO

GJ

I think the main point we can all get from this thread is that in order to find whats best for you, you have to try everything logical. i.e no doughnuts and ice cream diet. Like Stu said, what works for me, may or may not work for you, the only way to find out is to try it

[quote]alaw4516 wrote:
I think the main point we can all get from this thread is that in order to find whats best for you, you have to try everything logical. i.e no doughnuts and ice cream diet. Like Stu said, what works for me, may or may not work for you, the only way to find out is to try it[/quote]

Yeah basicly what it all comes down to is that as long as you aren’t eating stupid shit and following a healthy diet with a reasonable macronutrient ratio and nutrient timing, then you are on the right track.

People have seen outstanding results cutting on both higher carb (~40%), moderate, and extremely low carb diets. What it comes down to is your own tolerance, your caloric deficit, and volume of training.

The only way to find that balance of psychological comfort and results is to understand your body and what works for you. This ties in with your somatype, carb tolerance, type of training, and most importantly past results.

Eat clean, train, get your protein, get your carbs in PWO, get your fish oil, and put yourself in a caloric deficit. I consider all of those mandatory, and the rest should be based off your own physiological needs. What works for others may or may not work for you.

Losing any more than 2-3 lbs per week would mean that you are restricting yourself too much. Evaluate your results and tailor them to reach that 1 or 2 lb per week mark and stick with it. Your needs may change over time as your body composition does, at which time you will again need to change something. There is no one size fits all approach, it is all entirely individual.

[quote]ovalpline wrote:
Any reason why you want to go low carb to reduce your bodyfat?

Speaking from experience on low carb diets, you’ll want to maintain the big picture. Sure you might mobilize body fat more efficiently IN THE BEGINNING, but once your thyroid drops, you become irritable, your libido drops, and your workout intensity suffers, what then?[/quote]

It takes a long time for thyroid to drop. Particularly in some people. I can go low carb for a good many weeks before negative signs appear or performance to begin to suffer.

[quote]ovalpline wrote:

<<<But brain reward circuitry, neurotransmitter levels (like serotonin), etc all create a huge drive to eat carbs.[/quote]

I think that neurotransmitter levels are being overlooked by the fans of low-carb dieting. For example, the cliche that there’s no such thing as an essential carb: what is the definition of “essential”?

I bet it doesn’t include optimal neurotransmitter and brain function and mood support. I speculate that the 25% of the population who got the short form of the serotonin transporter gene should consider more moderate carb diets instead.

[quote]andersons wrote:
ovalpline wrote:

<<<But brain reward circuitry, neurotransmitter levels (like serotonin), etc all create a huge drive to eat carbs.

I think that neurotransmitter levels are being overlooked by the fans of low-carb dieting. For example, the cliche that there’s no such thing as an essential carb: what is the definition of “essential”?

I bet it doesn’t include optimal neurotransmitter and brain function and mood support. I speculate that the 25% of the population who got the short form of the serotonin transporter gene should consider more moderate carb diets instead.
[/quote]

So how do you propose that 25% find out they have this short form gene? And, by your statement, we can assume that low carb diets do work well for the other 75%?

cueball

cueball

I’ve been on a low carb diet for 2.5 months now… my meal plan is almost eactly the same as yours mind you I don’t eat the oatmeal, rice, or potatoes. The only carbs you want should come from veggies and fruit. They both have vitamins and minerals and you also get your fiber. Mind you watch fruit that raise your blood sugar, chose something low on the glycemix index i.e. cherries…or if you like sweeter fruit eat it later at night…you’ll wake up with a clean slate.

I weighed 234. Since i started the diet in february i lost 27 pounds… for the last 2 weeks i have been doing cardio every other day…i jog 5 miles…since i started doing cardio i lost another 7 pounds. Current weight is 210 does any of that help you?

I’m doing the south beach diet by the way.

“Mind you watch fruit that raise your blood sugar”

Correction…watch ALL foods that raise your blood sugar above a 70 on the GI, if you must have those foods dont make a habbit out of it. Choose foods that are a 55 or lower on the GI.

[quote]cueball wrote:

So how do you propose that 25% find out they have this short form gene? And, by your statement, we can assume that low carb diets do work well for the other 75%?[/quote]

No, what I meant was that when determining whether a diet “works well,” people should ALSO consider its effect on brain health and function, not just on bodyfat.

People with a certain gene have lower levels of serotonin and are more susceptible to depression after enduring high levels of stress (which virtually anyone does at some point). People with a history of depression should include carbs in their diets IMO. They should do everything possible to keep serotonin levels up, and that includes eating carbs.

Also, many people on low-carb diets are in crappy moods a lot of the time. They are irritable. They are not happy. They have symptoms of depression.

So, I think that people overly vilify carbs for being fattening and don’t realize how much they support mood and brain functioning. It is possible for at least some people (me, for example) to lose fat on a diet that includes starchy carbs in nearly every meal. Furthermore, when including carbs, my mood and cognitive functioning are a million times better, AND I have an easier time preserving lean mass while losing fat.

[quote]andersons wrote:
cueball wrote:

So how do you propose that 25% find out they have this short form gene? And, by your statement, we can assume that low carb diets do work well for the other 75%?

No, what I meant was that when determining whether a diet “works well,” people should ALSO consider its effect on brain health and function, not just on bodyfat.

People with a certain gene have lower levels of serotonin and are more susceptible to depression after enduring high levels of stress (which virtually anyone does at some point). People with a history of depression should include carbs in their diets IMO. They should do everything possible to keep serotonin levels up, and that includes eating carbs.

Also, many people on low-carb diets are in crappy moods a lot of the time. They are irritable. They are not happy. They have symptoms of depression.

So, I think that people overly vilify carbs for being fattening and don’t realize how much they support mood and brain functioning. It is possible for at least some people (me, for example) to lose fat on a diet that includes starchy carbs in nearly every meal. Furthermore, when including carbs, my mood and cognitive functioning are a million times better, AND I have an easier time preserving lean mass while losing fat.[/quote]

Happy to see that Andersons “gets it”.

There is way more to consider than “this is the best way to lose fat because more fat is oxidized blah blah blah”. Questions like: How do you feel? How are your workouts? How is sex with your wife/gf? Life happens. It’s more than just scientific evidence occurring in a vacuum.

[quote]ovalpline wrote:
andersons wrote:
cueball wrote:

Happy to see that Andersons “gets it”.

There is way more to consider than “this is the best way to lose fat because more fat is oxidized blah blah blah”. Questions like: How do you feel? How are your workouts? How is sex with your wife/gf? Life happens. It’s more than just scientific evidence occurring in a vacuum.[/quote]

Alright, settle down. Your coming off a little smug now. Please don’t condescend and assume anyone is parroting. I am coming at this discussion from MY OWN experience. And it has been nothing but positive with only the first week being a sluggish time in regards to energy. After, it’s been higher, more even and I feel really good.

No one is claiming that there aren’t people who don’t do well or that shouldn’t use this approach. We all understand that it can be hard to resist the body’s temptation for carbs because they make us feel better. Lifting heavy shit isn’t easy either and it breaks down muscle tissue. Should we stop that?

However, Anderson said 25% have this short gene. Meaning 75% don’t. That leaves a whole lot of people who might do well on this diet. Obviously anyone on this diet who starts to feel depressed, libido drop, etc, should discontinue this approach. No one in this discussion has said otherwise.

What we have said is that it does work. Not much else. And I specifically have never said another approach won’t work. So please stop trying to convince us that YOUR scientific knowledge is any better than our real world experiences. It’s worked for some, some not, and if someone hasn’t tried it before they should to see if it is for them.

What they shouldn’t do is let someone sway them from trying, because, as you put it “it’s more than just scientific evidence occurring in a vacuum.” That statement pertains to both sides of this discussion.

cueball

[quote]cueball wrote:

However, Anderson said 25% have this short gene. Meaning 75% don’t. That leaves a whole lot of people who might do well on this diet. Obviously anyone on this diet who starts to feel depressed, libido drop, etc, should discontinue this approach. No one in this discussion has said otherwise.[/quote]

Aside from this discussion, that attitude is NOT prevalent on this site. In fact, in countless logs and even articles people describe how crappy they feel on their diets and seem to just accept it as a fact of dieting. I can’t think of even one instance where anyone was encouraged to add carbs to their diets because he felt so crappy. Of course, I haven’t read every article or thread on the site, but I can’t remember reading any cautions like the one you stated above either.

Even for the 75% who may not be in danger of triggering major clinical depression, it’s my observation that their moods and cognitive performance often suffer on very low carb diets.

Some people claim to feel wonderful, and if so, that’s great. I’m not trying to make low-carb dieters defensive of their diets. However, some may want to consider a higher-carb approach for mood and brain function support and better quality of life. That has rarely if ever been advocated here that I have seen.

[quote]andersons wrote:
cueball wrote:
Aside from this discussion, that attitude is NOT prevalent on this site. In fact, in countless logs and even articles people describe how crappy they feel on their diets and seem to just accept it as a fact of dieting. I can’t think of even one instance where anyone was encouraged to add carbs to their diets because he felt so crappy. Of course, I haven’t read every article or thread on the site, but I can’t remember reading any cautions like the one you stated above either.

Even for the 75% who may not be in danger of triggering major clinical depression, it’s my observation that their moods and cognitive performance often suffer on very low carb diets.

Some people claim to feel wonderful, and if so, that’s great. I’m not trying to make low-carb dieters defensive of their diets. However, some may want to consider a higher-carb approach for mood and brain function support and better quality of life. That has rarely if ever been advocated here that I have seen.[/quote]

I think a lot of people that are complaining about their diets are feeling that way because of restricted calories, not necessarily lack of carbs. Sure, some do complain about those symptoms because their body isn’t responding positively to that approach.

In the large AD thread, most claim a steady, abundant energy source and the absence of post meal sluggishness after the induction phase. As far as the cautions I stated, those were in response to Ovalpline’s statements alluding to the fact that low carb is a big no-no across the board due to the CHANCE those symptoms could happen. I wanted to make it clear that no one in this discussion had said it’s a good idea to continue with those symptoms.

It’s seems Ovalpline wants to tout what he’s learned in school and use it as a generalization and not conceed that it is a viable and successful approach, FOR SOME. Rather, since the symptoms he outlined earlier COULD happen to SOME people, it should be avoided. If this isn’t what he meant (and I’ll give him this out) it’s not how his posts have come across.

Which is what toocul4u was trying to say with this statement on page 1:
"It’s disturbing that you recognize the genetic control of metabolism that exists, and then blanket human biochemistry with the antiquated statement “exercise and controlled calorie diets are the solution” . Ovalpline didn’t seem to understand this critque, however.

cueball

also, something to consider:

genes can be activated. its not always one way or the other.

diet (including macronutrient proportions, frequency of meals, etc.) and activity (type/duration/etc) can affect these “on/off” genes.

I mean no offense, but maybe someone with a genetics/nutrition degree would be able to offer a better view than an anthro (i like the major though, its really interesting).

It’s pretty obvious to me, my clients, other trainers, most people on the forums, etc., that it does matter what you eat, not just how many calories you are consuming vs expending. The exact science is not yet known, but we still know what works for most people.

[quote]cueball wrote:

I think a lot of people that are complaining about their diets are feeling that way because of restricted calories, not necessarily lack of carbs. Sure, some do complain about those symptoms because their body isn’t responding positively to that approach.[/quote]

Maybe, and I have thought of that. But I know without a doubt that I can eat low calories while maintaining a great mood, and sharp cognitive function, IF and ONLY IF I eat enough carbs.

I’ve also observed that people on the very-low-carb diets are just so irritable. It’s not just me. And I do not think it’s the calories. It’s the carbs. In fact, follow a super-low-carb diet for a few weeks, then eat a couple donuts. Your mood will skyrocket like you just took Ecstasy or something.

Yes, I have heard many claim good energy. But mood and energy are not the same thing. The only thing worse than dealing with a low-energy irritable person is dealing with a high-energy irritable person. :slight_smile:

I don’t really want to address everything ovalpline said, except that I agree with him about the importance of the brain’s reward circuitry and neurotransmitter function. These things give humans a drive to eat carbs. Carbs are needed for optimal serotonin levels, for instance. There is more to a diet’s effects than just fat loss.

I usually stay low carb year round with the absolute max I go to is 200g. I keep these carbs in strategic points of the day though:

Breakfast
During W/O
PWO drink
PWO meal

other than those periods I don’t feel a need to have carbs anywhere else in the diet.

All of my carbs come from fruits. I don’t count the carbs in veggies.