Support NeoGAF

[Surfinn]

Spinach is a great source of magnesium. Can get it from avocado, almonds, fish, etc, too.

You can get selenium from meat and fish and mushrooms, etc. No concerns there.

Zinc is plentiful in beef, spinach, asparagus, mushrooms, and plenty of other keto-friendly foods.

I don't believe keto-adaptation is a scientifically proven, thing, but it's clear that different people have different reactions when eliminating carbs and draining their glycogen stores to shift to 24/7 ketogenesis. Regardless of that, though, if humans did not have the ability to quickly revert to using fat for energy, we would all die in our sleep.

My question then becomes: Why eliminate carbs in the first place? If you're eating whole foods, you're going to lose weight. You're going to be healthy and feel good (as long as you're eating a variety of foods). Don't eat processed junk. If you're a really big person, you're going to melt fat away with carbs and it's going to be even better if you do moderate exercise.

This is from personal experience, not second hand opinions (and the experience from a number of people around me who have a similar diet).

 

[Deleted member 17706]

My question then becomes: Why eliminate carbs in the first place? If you're eating whole foods, you're going to lose weight. You're going to be healthy and feel good (as long as you're eating a variety of foods). Don't eat processed junk. If you're a really big person, you're going to melt fat away with carbs and it's going to be even better if you do moderate exercise.

There are a wide variety of reasons, but stable energy and mental clarity throughout the day are what really make it an attractive way of eating for me. Obviously, different people will react differently, but I think everyone can benefit from freeing themselves from the roller coaster of spiking blood sugar and having it subsequently crash multiple times per day. Another way to achieve this effect is intermittent fasting, of course.

There's also the hunger issue. Again, there appears to be a lot of individual variance, but a diet high in fat with enough protein will generally make people feel far more satiated for far longer than a carb-heavy diet (largely due to the blood sugar ups and downs mentioned above). It's not uncommon at all for people on keto diets to simply forget meals or forgo them because they are simply not hungry. I think it's why a lot of keto folks naturally transition into intermittent fasting.

Overall, I just feel better without carbs. I've seen others say they were miserable on the diet, though, and without knowing the details of what they ate, I can only take them for their word.

 

[harSon]

This is bullshit. Calories in/calories out works. I've been losing a steady 2 lbs per week for the past 3 months doing that. I still eat carbs, sugar and anything else I want as long as I stay under my daily calorie limit. I do walking for exercise to the tune of about 5000 steps per day which is about 40 mins if I do it all at once.

To be fair, foods that are high in carbs tend to be calorie dense and not terribly filling. By restricting your caloric intake, you'll likely be lowering your carb intake.

And anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much. I personally lost close to 100 pounds eating low carb, and didn't worry too much about calorie in / calories out for most of that.

 

[ronco2000]

Tons of sex. Heard from a friend.

 

[Surfinn]

There are a wide variety of reasons, but stable energy and mental clarity throughout the day are what really make it an attractive way of eating for me. Obviously, different people will react differently, but I think everyone can benefit from freeing themselves from the roller coaster of spiking blood sugar and having it subsequently crash multiple times per day. Another way to achieve this effect is intermittent fasting, of course.

There's also the hunger issue. Again, there appears to be a lot of individual variance, but a diet high in fat with enough protein will generally make people feel far more satiated for far longer than a carb-heavy diet (largely due to the blood sugar ups and downs mentioned above). It's not uncommon at all for people on keto diets to simply forget meals or forgo them because they are simply not hungry. I think it's why a lot of keto folks naturally transition into intermittent fasting.

Overall, I just feel better without carbs. I've seen others say they were miserable on the diet, though, and without knowing the details of what they ate, I can only take them for their word.

I'm glad you've found something that works for you (and obviously keep doing it if you're feeling good and are healthy), but I've got plenty of energy from carbs and feel the best I've felt in my life on that front (never experienced a shortage, unless I'm just not feeling well that day). Mental clarity sounds like placebo (which can also be a powerful tool). I've had ABSOLUTELY no problem whatsoever with hunger. Nuts, avacado.. and my god potatoes fill you like no amount of protein or fat I've ever consumed. Rice, pasta, beans, tofu.. fiber rich meals fill you as well as anything else I've eaten, too.

Of course, a lot of this depends on how WHAT YOU COOK (not necessarily on your skill or creativity as a cook), which consists of finding what you like, experimenting and repeating meals you really enjoy.

Hell if my first experience of a plant based diet was some of the stuff we've tried cooking in the past, I'd run for the hills.

Thoroughly satisfied and rarely hungry with this lifestyle.

 

[Googledotcom666]

Not sure about kg etc, but I dropped from 14st to 12.7st in 3 weeks from a crash diet (yes not healthy)

I hate 1 banana and 1 apple at lunch time, then ate a ham or chicken salad for dinner/tea time.

Then on the weekend I had 1 takeaway lol!

The problem is with a crash diet when you stop you need to slowly eat again otherwise the weight just rapidly gains!

i don't really enjoy food to be honest though, just think about it when I'm hungry and go for the quickest thing possible (mc donalds god dam you)

 

[StudioTan]

To be fair, foods that are high in carbs tend to be calorie dense and not terribly filling. By restricting your caloric intake, you'll likely be lowering your carb intake.

And anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much. I personally lost close to 100 pounds eating low carb, and didn't worry too much about calorie in / calories out for most of that.

Yes, exactly. Of course you're going to lose weight by restricting carbs because they tend to be high in calories so you're likely eating less calories. Also, as you said, if you're counting calories you're going to end up eating less carbs anyway because of the high 'cost' of eating them.

Either way it's calories in/calories out, just a different way of approaching it.

 

[karasu]

To be fair, foods that are high in carbs tend to be calorie dense and not terribly filling. By restricting your caloric intake, you'll likely be lowering your carb intake.

And anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much. I personally lost close to 100 pounds eating low carb, and didn't worry too much about calorie in / calories out for most of that.

Hey, how low did you go with the carbs for this?

 

[SmackDaddy]

One thing isn't going to do it for you bud. You need to make small changes that are easy to stick to. It's a lifestyle change, not a remedy. Without this mindset, you're gunnar yoyo like a yoyo

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I'm glad you've found something that works for you (and obviously keep doing it if you're feeling good and are healthy), but I've got plenty of energy from carbs and feel the best I've felt in my life on that front (never experienced a shortage, unless I'm just not feeling well that day). Mental clarity sounds like placebo (which can also be a powerful tool). I've had ABSOLUTELY no problem whatsoever with hunger. Nuts, avacado.. and my god potatoes fill you like no amount of protein or fat I've ever consumed. Rice, pasta, beans, tofu.. fiber rich meals fill you as well as anything else I've eaten, too.

Of course, a lot of this depends on how WHAT YOU COOK (not necessarily on your skill or creativity as a cook), which consists of finding what you like, experimenting and repeating meals you really enjoy.

Hell if my first experience of a plant based diet was some of the stuff we've tried cooking in the past, I'd run for the hills.

Thoroughly satisfied and rarely hungry with this lifestyle.

That's the thing, though, it's not just something that works for me. There are clearly understood mechanisms that explain the benefits of reducing or eliminating carbs. Mental clarity absolutely isn't a placebo. Keeping your blood sugar stable throughout the day has clear mental benefits.

I'm right there with you on loving nuts and avocado! Great foods and they (well, depending on the nuts) fit right in with a ketogenic diet.

In the end, though, if you have a diet and lifestyle that is working for you, then I wouldn't recommend changing it to anyone. It's the people who are not satisfied with where they are in terms of health and performance to whom I would recommend experimenting.

Yes, exactly. Of course you're going to lose weight by restricting carbs because they tend to be high in calories so you're likely eating less calories. Also, as you said, if you're counting calories you're going to end up eating less carbs anyway because of the high 'cost' of eating them.

Either way it's calories in/calories out, just a different way of approaching it.

I gotta disagree with your sentiment about it always coming down to calories in/calories out. The calories out part is obviously true in that, if your body needs to expend more energy than it can get from the food it is provided, it will proceed to break down body tissue to meet its needs. Of course, it will also react to starvation by down-regulating various functions or doing what it can to expend less energy.

The calories in part is what doesn't make sense. At all.

The different macronutrients have different roles and are used for different things in the body. The roles and uses are further determined by hormones which are stimulated by a wide variety of things in your environment. Furthermore, your body processes its food right then and there when you eat it. It's convenient for people to say stuff like "2,000 calories each day" or whatever, but the 24-hour window that we choose is completely arbitrary and just chosen for convenience. There is no holding chamber where the food you ate in a day is kept until the grand tallying at the end of the day that determines whether you lose or gain weight. That's just not how it works at all.

 

[karasu]

When people say cardio is overrated does that include its benefits for the heart? I've read that weightlifting is best for fat burning in plenty of articles, but I've never seen anything that says weightlifting is just as good at improving endurance or keeping your heart healthy.

 

[Surfinn]

That's the thing, though, it's not just something that works for me. There are clearly understood mechanisms that explain the benefits of reducing or eliminating carbs. Mental clarity absolutely isn't a placebo. Keeping your blood sugar stable throughout the day has clear mental benefits.

I'm right there with you on loving nuts and avocado! Great foods and they (well, depending on the nuts) fit right in with a ketogenic diet.

In the end, though, if you have a diet and lifestyle that is working for you, then I wouldn't recommend changing it to anyone. It's the people who are not satisfied with where they are in terms of health and performance to whom I would recommend experimenting.

Wasn't implying it doesn't work for other people. I'm saying keto carbs/lack of having better mental clarity sounds like placebo; since switching from the typical western diet, I also have improved mental clarity and focus. And energy.

Right, and I agree with you. I just don't want people to read about changing their diet and think keto is the ONLY route to take when getting healthy/losing weight. Plus you miss out on a ton of tasty food and much more variety when cooking/eating out. And there's no way to throw that away if you don't need to.

But if people try keto and it works for them, great. Anything is better than eating a typical western diet.

 

[DopeToast]

There are so many different ways of going about doing it, especially when you are just starting off, and I'd be crazy if I thought I knew the correct way. I only know what worked for me:

Calorie deficit
Eventually adding in exercise

I ate at a pretty large deficit, probably eating around 1250 calories six days per week, and probably 2200 or so one day a week (I'd have an awesome cheat dinner on Fridays and it was amazing). I started at 300 pounds and lost about 3-4 pounds per week until I lost 60, and I've been able to keep it mostly off for three years now. So I would advise to start with a diet where you aren't starving yourself and can sustain it, and gradually add in weight lifting and cardio as you go along. You can always walk. Eventually it will make sense to eat healthy and count your macros if you get to that point, but for starting out I just kept track of what I ate, which was usually the same thing every day except for that cheat meal.

So yeah, it wasn't the healthiest diet and there's no way I would live off of it forever, but I'm a much healthier person now than I was at 300 pounds. Good luck!

 

[IggyChooChoo]

I hear you, here's the deal.

5 medium potatoes is about 815 calories:

21.5 grams of protein
185 grams of carbs
1 gram of fat

That's a really bad balance of macros there. That's VERY carb heavy. Yes, people can live off of that, but it's not ideal by any means.

You need to get your protein way higher. If you weight 150lbs I would try to at least get 100grams of protein a day. Everything else after can be fats and carbs.

I would also try to get a better ratio of fats mixed in there. That's VERY low on the fats.

You would be better served to eat something like beans at least:

Black beans at 800 calories:

50 grams of protein
152 grams of carbs
1.9 grams of fat

that's at least a little better balanced, though I would still supplement with some dairy or something to get the fat and protein higher.

Additionally, as many have said, it's just not sustainable. I doubt you will eat that kind of potato diet for the rest of your life. If you aren't, you will eventually have to balance a more complex diet. Better to do the groundwork now and learn so that you can create sustainable habits for a lifestyle change.

But that macro assessment doesn't take into account my weekend diet, which includes dairy, meat, and vegetables. (Also, I don't understand what you specifically mean when you say "a bad balance of macros.")

My plan is to do potato cycles weekdays until mid-late November, when I'll hopefully hit my target weight. At that point I will transition to strength exercises and a different, sustainable meal plan. Is that so crazy?

 

[Labombadog]

Don't make it complicated first of all. Keep it simple and fun to stay motivated! I didn't track my macros til much later in my fitness life. I still lost fat / gained muscle but of course tracking is more efficient. Personally, lifting weights and eating whole foods made me lose fat / gain muscle. Running in the morning before eating anything is also good on burning fat.

Congrats on deciding to change your lifestyle! Work hard but have fun while at it. If you find your self bored from the same routine then don't be afraid on changing it!

 

[TheOctodad]

But that macro assessment doesn't take into account my weekend diet, which includes dairy, meat, and vegetables. (Also, I don't understand what you specifically mean when you say "a bad balance of macros.")

My plan is to do potato cycles weekdays until mid-late November, when I'll hopefully hit my target weight. At that point I will transition to strength exercises and a different, sustainable meal plan. Is that so crazy?

Alright I didn't factor in the weekends, so here's how a weekly breakdown would work:

As I said, you should have 100 grams of protein a day (minimum, as a 195lbs guy I try to get close to 200grams of protein, but whatever).

100 grams x 7 days = 700 grams of protein

700 grams of protein - 107.5 from your week of potato eating = 594.5 grams of protein left to hit your minimum per week.

Are you telling me you eat almost 300 grams of protein in 2 days on the weekend? Even so, if you did you are barely making it.

When I say you have a bad balance of macros I'm referring to the macro nutrients in your diet (fats, carbs, proteins). You are eating an overabundance of carbs. Carbs are the last thing you should be eating out of the three right now. That is going to do is mean you will lose a ton of muscle mass (muscles need protein) and be even further behind when you do start working out.

Sorry man, but your potato only diet is not a good choice. You might lose weight, but you could do so much better for yourself and start off on a much healthier foot.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Alright I didn't factor in the weekends, so here's how a weekly breakdown would work:

As I said, you should have 100 grams of protein a day (minimum, as a 195lbs guy I try to get close to 200grams of protein, but whatever).

100 grams x 7 days = 700 grams of protein

700 grams of protein - 107.5 from your week of potato eating = 594.5 grams of protein left to hit your minimum per week.

Are you telling me you eat almost 300 grams of protein in 2 days on the weekend? Even so, if you did you are barely making it.

When I say you have a bad balance of macros I'm referring to the macro nutrients in your diet (fats, carbs, proteins). You are eating an overabundance of carbs. Carbs are the last thing you should be eating out of the three right now. That is going to do is mean you will lose a ton of muscle mass (muscles need protein) and be even further behind when you do start working out.

Sorry man, but your potato only diet is not a good choice. You might lose weight, but you could do so much better for yourself and start off on a much healthier foot.

What does "better" and "healthier" mean? I haven't worked out in 4 years and have gained 40 pounds. If I find a way to lose weight, why not take it? This potato diet is the same thing that Penn Jillette did to lose 100 pounds, and he's kept it off.

 

[TheOctodad]

What does "better" and "healthier" mean? I haven't worked out in 4 years and have gained 40 pounds. If I find a way to lose weight, why not take it? This potato diet is the same thing that Penn Jillette did to lose 100 pounds, and he's kept it off.

If that's what you want, do it. You're right, it's better than gaining weight.

Lack of protein will mean you will lose more muscle mass instead of just fat. The more you lack protein the more you will lose both fat AND muscle and you will be "skinny-fat." A better diet would leave you with more muscle mass and looking more fit even if you never worked out.

Protein also contributes to bone health which is important if you are overweight especially.

Enough fat in your diet contributes to bone health as well, reduced cancer risk, lower cholesterol, reduced heart disease, help your immune system and are better for your skin.

So that's just a few things I mean when I say "healthier" and "better"

Also Penn Jillette just lost that weight recently. Let's see if he keeps it off in 5-10 years.

And if that's the reference you want: http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/hea...a39697/penn-jillette-weight-loss-potato-diet/

Under medical supervision, Jillette embarked on the "potato diet," eating only plain potatoes for two whole weeks. After subsisting on spuds alone, he started phasing in vegetable stews for added nutrients.

But the potato diet won't work magic for everyone. "While there's no doubt that potatoes — just like all vegetables— are supremely nutritious, eliminating almost all other food groups in totality is not only dangerous, but can really backfire," says Jaclyn London, R.D., Nutrition Director at the Good Housekeeping Institute. The dramatic changes usually slow down your body's metabolism and result in binging later on, she explains. "While veggie stews and potatoes can be amazing weight-loss allies, it's never good advice to completely eliminate food groups in order to lose weight for the long-term."

http://calorielab.com/news/2015/06/12/penn-jillette-diet/

There’s a lot of scientific and crank pseudoscience backstory for the diet, as there is with all diets, and buying into it can help with motivation. You’ll have to read the various books for that, however.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

If that's what you want, do it. You're right, it's better than gaining weight.

Lack of protein will mean you will lose more muscle mass instead of just fat. The more you lack protein the more you will lose both fat AND muscle and you will be "skinny-fat." A better diet would leave you with more muscle mass and looking more fit even if you never worked out.

Protein also contributes to bone health which is important if you are overweight especially.

Enough fat in your diet contributes to bone health as well, reduced cancer risk, lower cholesterol, reduced heart disease, help your immune system and are better for your skin.

So that's just a few things I mean when I say "healthier" and "better"

I may just do this for a week or two and then switch to chicken salads and beans and rice and what not. The time I lost 30 pounds once before I was just walking a lot, and eating lots of beans and rice and french fries.

 

[TheOctodad]

I may just do this for a week or two and then switch to chicken salads and beans and rice and what not. The time I lost 30 pounds once before I was just walking a lot, and eating lots of beans and rice and french fries.

That would be a lot better for you I think! I just want you to succeed and make the best progress you can!

 

[BlueTsunami]

Crash dieting is dangerous for many reasons... But it is doable, and muscle mass is easier to spare the higher bodyfat you have, but you have to make sure you're getting your nutrients, your protein intake (as said), and an exit plan for when you move off the diet. There's a whole lot of pitfalls though, and the risk of binging is real. With all that said, a potato diet sounds like a recipe to become skinny fat. Realize one should not just try to lose weight, they should be trying to lose fat. Which is why calorie in calorie out can be bad advice when taken to its extreme.

I understand the appeal. When you're 100+ lbs overweight a sensible diet of losing one to two pounds a week is maddening. But like gambling the larger risks come with bigger rewards, you just have to ask yourself if you can handle that sort of psychological and physical torture and go in armed with all the info you need.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Appreciate the advice. One thing the diet has taught me is that hunger is less scary than it was, and that I can control my cravings better than I thought I could.

 

[TheOctodad]

Appreciate the advice. One thing the diet has taught me is that hunger is less scary than it was, and that I can control my cravings better than I thought I could.

I feel you man. At one point in my life I lost 50lbs. I got to a point where I actually kind of liked "feeling hungry" because it felt like I was actually making progress and it was working.

 

[KonradLaw]

My question then becomes: Why eliminate carbs in the first place?

Because it makes loosing weight much easier. Less hunger, more protein and fat ingested,

 

[justjohn]

Wont be a weight loss thread without zefah arguing with someone.

 

[Maximo]

When people say cardio is overrated does that include its benefits for the heart? I've read that weightlifting is best for fat burning in plenty of articles, but I've never seen anything that says weightlifting is just as good at improving endurance or keeping your heart healthy.

I think people mean in terms of losing weight, exercise is 100% a waste of time unless your diet is sorted out first. One should get their diet on point before they consider working out, otherwise I tend to see people working out building a appetite and end up eating more calories then they burned since they have no prepared meal plan. Cardio is not overrated for ones health and endurance and should be done on off days after weight lifting, best of both worlds.

 

[140.85]

20% calorie deficit from TDEE+ intermittent fasting has worked incredibly well for me. It actually was too effective and I had to raise my calorie intake so I wouldn't drop too fast. (Macros are bodyweight in protein, 20-30% "good" fat, and the rest carbs)

This is the first time in my adult life that I have seen my abs.

Calorie deficit is king. Don't cut carbs. It's dumb. Eat starch like brown rice, oatmeal, sweet potatoes and legumes but don't cut them out entirely.

 

[Paertan]

My question then becomes: Why eliminate carbs in the first place? If you're eating whole foods, you're going to lose weight. You're going to be healthy and feel good (as long as you're eating a variety of foods). Don't eat processed junk. If you're a really big person, you're going to melt fat away with carbs and it's going to be even better if you do moderate exercise.

This is from personal experience, not second hand opinions (and the experience from a number of people around me who have a similar diet).

Carbs is the nutrition that keeps you from getting hungry again the shortest time. Depending on the type of carbs it differs. Sugars are the worst while more complex carbs are better.
Protein keeps you full for the longest time. Fat is not as good as protein but better than carbs.

This is on average. Different people react differently. That is why you need to find a diet that fits you.

 

[Zepp Twofist]

Calories in/calories out is another example of our arrogance as a species, thinking that we have it all figured out. Completely ignoring the intricate and complex system that is our bodies and all of the various hormones that govern it in favor of a bullshit equation that makes so many incorrect assumptions at every step of the way that it's insane that anyone can think it's even remotely valid.

Wait. Our hormones and complex systems can defy thermodynamics?

Maybe the robots in The Matrix was on to something using us as batteries after all.

 

[KonradLaw]

Wait. Our hormones and complex systems can defy thermodynamics?

Maybe the robots in The Matrix was on to something using us as batteries after all.

No, they can't. People just don't realize human body isn't a furnace. Because that's how calories were determined. Thinking it will translate perfectly to how living organism processes matter doesn't make any sense.

For example...1000 calorie of protein =/= 1000 calories of carbs. Because body needs to use three times as much energy to process protein as it does carbs.

 

[Paertan]

No, they can't. People just don't realize human body isn't a furnace. Because that's how calories were determined. Thinking it will translate perfectly to how living organism processes matter doesn't make any sense.

For example...1000 calorie of protein =/= 1000 calories of carbs. Because body needs to use three times as much energy to process protein as it does carbs.

But the calories shown on food takes that into account.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

No, they can't. People just don't realize human body isn't a furnace. Because that's how calories were determined. Thinking it will translate perfectly to how living organism processes matter doesn't make any sense.

For example...1000 calorie of protein =/= 1000 calories of carbs. Because body needs to use three times as much energy to process protein as it does carbs.

It's way more complex than the single carb-to-sugar-to-fat metabolic pathway.
NuSI Hall Study: No Ketogenic Advantage

 

[GoldenCrow]

but I think everyone can benefit from freeing themselves from the roller coaster of spiking blood sugar and having it subsequently crash multiple times per day. Another way to achieve this effect is intermittent fasting, of course.

Just cutting out simple carbs and switching to complex carbs stops the crashes.

 

[WolfForager]

Calorie deficit. Cardio to burn fat. Weight lifting to add some shape/definition (also cardio is boring af). Happy days.

 

[brokenbeans]

I have started to do hit training before my normal workouts to burn any unnecessary fat.

 

[iamblades]

Proper progressive overload style weight training programs work because they ensure that you are actually working out at an intensity level high enough to cause an adaptive response. Just doing vague 'cardio' doesn't really cause any adaptive stress. Sure you are 'burning calories', but if the intensity of the workout isn't high enough(which is both hard to judge, and hard to maintain over a long period of time) it is super easy for the increase in appetite from the workout to outweigh the calories burned.

Also the more muscle mass you have, the more effective cardio is, so weight training reinforces the benefits of other forms of exercise. Bigger engines burn more fuel.

Weight training is also super time efficient, because you are increasing intensity instead of volume.

 

[Hayvic]

You need to target a specific area where you want to burn fat. For example if you want to lose fat around your belly do a lot of crunches. Also don't eat anything after 6 pm.

 

[mnz]

You need to target a specific area where you want to burn fat. For example if you want to lose fat around your belly do a lot of crunches. Also don't eat anything after 6 pm.

Come on...

 

[Mascot]

25 miles a day over rough terrain on the mountain bike seems to work for me.

 

[empyrean]

You need to target a specific area where you want to burn fat. For example if you want to lose fat around your belly do a lot of crunches. Also don't eat anything after 6 pm.

I'm fairly certain that targeted weight loss has proven to be false. There is no way to target areas to lose weight from.

 

[GoldenCrow]

You need to target a specific area where you want to burn fat. For example if you want to lose fat around your belly do a lot of crunches. Also don't eat anything after 6 pm.

Yeah that isn't true at all. Crunches don't do shit anyway unless you are on steroids and want to avoid a roid gut.

 

[SoundLad]

You need to target a specific area where you want to burn fat. For example if you want to lose fat around your belly do a lot of crunches. Also don't eat anything after 6 pm.

This is false. You can't target a specific area to lose fat from.

 

[WrenchNinja]

Jumping rope is amazing. I like to do 100 skips, wait twenty seconds, do another skips over and over over the course of a half hour. Works really well for me.

 

[entremet]

Many of carbs in the Western diet are wrapped in fat and sugar, so yes eliminating them will help.

But many populations eat carbs, lots of them, without obesity problems. East Asians are a prime example here.

If Keto and Low Carb works for you, great. Bit vilifying all carbs as evil is just as bad as fat phobia.

 

[Weckum]

You need to target a specific area where you want to burn fat. For example if you want to lose fat around your belly do a lot of crunches. Also don't eat anything after 6 pm.

You funny. Both things are not true.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

Wait. Our hormones and complex systems can defy thermodynamics?

Maybe the robots in The Matrix was on to something using us as batteries after all.

The problem is in the assumption that all food eaten is equally used for energy. That's the problem with the calories in part of the equation. Has nothing to do with the laws of thermodynamics.

Just cutting out simple carbs and switching to complex carbs stops the crashes.

Not really... I mean, you'll certainly be some degree better off, but whole wheat bread and brown rice are going to spike your blood sugar in almost the same way as white bread and white rice.

Wont be a weight loss thread without zefah arguing with someone.

Ha! I'm sure I missed a few while I was relatively inactive around here.

But the calories shown on food takes that into account.

No, they do not. Furthermore, the values assigned to each macronutrient (protein = 4, carbohydrate = 4, fat = 9) are just near estimates. There is often a good deal of variance in actual caloric yield depending on the food, but the calories on a typical food label are determined by simply adding up the values from the macronutrients. They are generally close, of course, but you're talking about huge discrepancies over the long term.

It's way more complex than the single carb-to-sugar-to-fat metabolic pathway.
NuSI Hall Study: No Ketogenic Advantage

That was an interesting study, but I still don't understand why Kevin Hall did that video. They investigated weight loss and actually *did* find a metabolic advantage after switching to low-carb. It leveled out, sure, but "no advantage" is counter to what the study found. Besides, the carb/insulin theory has always been about weight (body fat) gain, so doing a study that purely investigates weight loss is puzzling to me.

 

[Surfinn]

Not really... I mean, you'll certainly be some degree better off, but whole wheat bread and brown rice are going to spike your blood sugar in almost the same way as white bread and white rice.

I eat whole wheat bread and brown rice every single day (for the past 7 months). My GF and I had blood work done, all numbers are in the healthy range (including blood sugar). I seriously doubt we're outliers as I've never heard of this being an issue with other vegans who I talk to/research based evidence I've seen online.

 

[HyperZone<3]

eating well, eating less, and being active everyday has worked for me. Trouble is maintaining that sort discipline over time becomes difficult, but hey, I've dropped ten pounds this year so I must be doing sorta okay.

 

[ajfoucault]

Count your calories and macros
"Lose It!" for Android is useful for that.

Also, read Bigger - Leaner - Stronger, one of the best books on fitness backed up by actual peer-reviewed journals and real research, as opposed to bs broscience.

 

[Wellington]

Look up the slow carb diet.

Execute

Thank me later.