Carbs after lunch?
Replies
-
FYI I'm eating the same amount of calories. I AM NOT CONFUSED EITHER0
-
carmel224466 wrote: »This is the first post I've ever written on myfitnesspal. I honestly wanted to know if anyone else was seeing success with this method. Some people are being so combative! At no time did I say I was going to ignore what some people believed. I can't believe that you people have time to just argue on myfitnesspal! Some of you have written thousands of posts!!! Just relax, everyone seems to be doing well for their own bodies and maybe what works for some people doesn't work for others. The condescending attitudes are not necessary. I am fully aware of how calorie deficits work but I am seeing success with this method.
if you believe in carb timing or no carbs after 2pm then no, you don't understand how calorie deficits work. I am not being mean, that is just a fact.0 -
Uh, no!! I'm pretty sure you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Go pound sand, dude. I'm not entertaining it.ncboiler89 wrote: »I agree the the OP. I dropped 30 pounds last fall with this same approach. I did no carbs after 2pm. The only carbs I would allow were dark leafy, kale, chard, greens, and Brussel sprouts. The results I gathered came from the reduction of insulin spikes caused by the carbs and their conversion to glucose. In a carb depleted state my body would use fat stores as energy. It worked for my body, glad to he someone else preaching it worked for them.
LOL, why don't you run a little experiment on yourself. Eat no carbs after two pm, but eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus, and report back with what happens. I will go with 100% certainty that you gain weight.
If its easier for some people to lose by not eating carbs at night then why not go with that strategy?
But the question in the OP was if the timing of said carb ingestion makes a difference. If someone can go low carbs and lose weight more power to them but let's not get confused about why this works. It's not the lack of carbs or what time you eat the carbs it the calorie deficit.
I'm pretty sure I'm not confused.
pretty sure you are...
-7 -
carmel224466 wrote: »This is the first post I've ever written on myfitnesspal. I honestly wanted to know if anyone else was seeing success with this method. Some people are being so combative! At no time did I say I was going to ignore what some people believed. I can't believe that you people have time to just argue on myfitnesspal! Some of you have written thousands of posts!!! Just relax, everyone seems to be doing well for their own bodies and maybe what works for some people doesn't work for others. The condescending attitudes are not necessary. I am fully aware of how calorie deficits work but I am seeing success with this method.
do you know how long some of us have been here kicking *kitten* and taking names? Thus the thousands of posts...we're talking years, not a few days or a handful of months.0 -
carmel224466 wrote: »This is the first post I've ever written on myfitnesspal. I honestly wanted to know if anyone else was seeing success with this method. Some people are being so combative! At no time did I say I was going to ignore what some people believed. I can't believe that you people have time to just argue on myfitnesspal! Some of you have written thousands of posts!!! Just relax, everyone seems to be doing well for their own bodies and maybe what works for some people doesn't work for others. The condescending attitudes are not necessary. I am fully aware of how calorie deficits work but I am seeing success with this method.
Good for you! Like I said, if this method works for you then keep doing it. Everyone is different but the bottom line is truly eating less calories then you burn. Some people love to argue, not sure why.0 -
Uh, no!! I'm pretty sure you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Go pound sand, dude. I'm not entertaining it.ncboiler89 wrote: »I agree the the OP. I dropped 30 pounds last fall with this same approach. I did no carbs after 2pm. The only carbs I would allow were dark leafy, kale, chard, greens, and Brussel sprouts. The results I gathered came from the reduction of insulin spikes caused by the carbs and their conversion to glucose. In a carb depleted state my body would use fat stores as energy. It worked for my body, glad to he someone else preaching it worked for them.
LOL, why don't you run a little experiment on yourself. Eat no carbs after two pm, but eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus, and report back with what happens. I will go with 100% certainty that you gain weight.
If its easier for some people to lose by not eating carbs at night then why not go with that strategy?
But the question in the OP was if the timing of said carb ingestion makes a difference. If someone can go low carbs and lose weight more power to them but let's not get confused about why this works. It's not the lack of carbs or what time you eat the carbs it the calorie deficit.
I'm pretty sure I'm not confused.
pretty sure you are...
nope, I am just correcting the record for science and what not.
and you are the one name calling, not me.
0 -
Uh, no!! I'm pretty sure you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Go pound sand, dude. I'm not entertaining it.ncboiler89 wrote: »I agree the the OP. I dropped 30 pounds last fall with this same approach. I did no carbs after 2pm. The only carbs I would allow were dark leafy, kale, chard, greens, and Brussel sprouts. The results I gathered came from the reduction of insulin spikes caused by the carbs and their conversion to glucose. In a carb depleted state my body would use fat stores as energy. It worked for my body, glad to he someone else preaching it worked for them.
LOL, why don't you run a little experiment on yourself. Eat no carbs after two pm, but eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus, and report back with what happens. I will go with 100% certainty that you gain weight.
If its easier for some people to lose by not eating carbs at night then why not go with that strategy?
But the question in the OP was if the timing of said carb ingestion makes a difference. If someone can go low carbs and lose weight more power to them but let's not get confused about why this works. It's not the lack of carbs or what time you eat the carbs it the calorie deficit.
I'm pretty sure I'm not confused.
pretty sure you are...
nope, I am just correcting the record for science and what not.
and you are the one name calling, not me.
Now I'm name calling? Hmmm, I must've missed that one.0 -
carmel224466 wrote: »This is the first post I've ever written on myfitnesspal. I honestly wanted to know if anyone else was seeing success with this method. Some people are being so combative! At no time did I say I was going to ignore what some people believed. I can't believe that you people have time to just argue on myfitnesspal! Some of you have written thousands of posts!!! Just relax, everyone seems to be doing well for their own bodies and maybe what works for some people doesn't work for others. The condescending attitudes are not necessary. I am fully aware of how calorie deficits work but I am seeing success with this method.
it's not success that is going to continue for you long-term. the point we are trying to make to you is this: the weight you are seeing is water weight. When you eliminate the late-day carbs, you eliminate a food that causes you to retain water. So what you are seeing on the scale isn't fat loss, it's water that wasn't retained. This is something that happens often when people start a low-carb diet. The problem is it doesn't continue long-term, the people doing it think it's not working anymore, and give up. I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm trying to get you to understand that it doesn't matter what time you eat any of the foods you eat; as long as you are eating in a deficit, your long-term weight loss will continue at the same steady rate.0 -
Uh, no!! I'm pretty sure you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Go pound sand, dude. I'm not entertaining it.ncboiler89 wrote: »I agree the the OP. I dropped 30 pounds last fall with this same approach. I did no carbs after 2pm. The only carbs I would allow were dark leafy, kale, chard, greens, and Brussel sprouts. The results I gathered came from the reduction of insulin spikes caused by the carbs and their conversion to glucose. In a carb depleted state my body would use fat stores as energy. It worked for my body, glad to he someone else preaching it worked for them.
LOL, why don't you run a little experiment on yourself. Eat no carbs after two pm, but eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus, and report back with what happens. I will go with 100% certainty that you gain weight.
If its easier for some people to lose by not eating carbs at night then why not go with that strategy?
But the question in the OP was if the timing of said carb ingestion makes a difference. If someone can go low carbs and lose weight more power to them but let's not get confused about why this works. It's not the lack of carbs or what time you eat the carbs it the calorie deficit.
I'm pretty sure I'm not confused.
pretty sure you are...
nope, I am just correcting the record for science and what not.
and you are the one name calling, not me.
Now I'm name calling? Hmmm, I must've missed that one.
telling someone to "pound sand" is the equivalent of telling them to F off...
funny, you don't practice what you preach.0 -
Incorrect information needs to be corrected even if the OP'er doesnt like the response he/she gets. Even if others respond with misleading information it needs to be corrected so no one has a missunderstanding of how weight loss works and is mislead.0
-
Uh, no!! I'm pretty sure you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Go pound sand, dude. I'm not entertaining it.ncboiler89 wrote: »I agree the the OP. I dropped 30 pounds last fall with this same approach. I did no carbs after 2pm. The only carbs I would allow were dark leafy, kale, chard, greens, and Brussel sprouts. The results I gathered came from the reduction of insulin spikes caused by the carbs and their conversion to glucose. In a carb depleted state my body would use fat stores as energy. It worked for my body, glad to he someone else preaching it worked for them.
LOL, why don't you run a little experiment on yourself. Eat no carbs after two pm, but eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus, and report back with what happens. I will go with 100% certainty that you gain weight.
If its easier for some people to lose by not eating carbs at night then why not go with that strategy?
But the question in the OP was if the timing of said carb ingestion makes a difference. If someone can go low carbs and lose weight more power to them but let's not get confused about why this works. It's not the lack of carbs or what time you eat the carbs it the calorie deficit.
I'm pretty sure I'm not confused.
pretty sure you are...
nope, I am just correcting the record for science and what not.
and you are the one name calling, not me.
Now I'm name calling? Hmmm, I must've missed that one.
telling someone to "pound sand" is the equivalent of telling them to F off...
funny, you don't practice what you preach.
Oh goodness, whateverrrrrrrrrr!!! Like I said, you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. You do it in most of your posts. Not sure why but you're right, I did say I wasn't going to entertain it and here I am. Go ahead and keep arguing, not with me though.-1 -
Conclusion quote: "Overall the people eating the majority of their carbs at night lost more bodyfat and had better markers of health bey the end of the study than those who ate more of their carbs during the day time."
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/carbs-at-night-fat-loss-killer-or-imaginary-boogeyman.html
0 -
Uh, no!! I'm pretty sure you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. Go pound sand, dude. I'm not entertaining it.ncboiler89 wrote: »I agree the the OP. I dropped 30 pounds last fall with this same approach. I did no carbs after 2pm. The only carbs I would allow were dark leafy, kale, chard, greens, and Brussel sprouts. The results I gathered came from the reduction of insulin spikes caused by the carbs and their conversion to glucose. In a carb depleted state my body would use fat stores as energy. It worked for my body, glad to he someone else preaching it worked for them.
LOL, why don't you run a little experiment on yourself. Eat no carbs after two pm, but eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus, and report back with what happens. I will go with 100% certainty that you gain weight.
If its easier for some people to lose by not eating carbs at night then why not go with that strategy?
But the question in the OP was if the timing of said carb ingestion makes a difference. If someone can go low carbs and lose weight more power to them but let's not get confused about why this works. It's not the lack of carbs or what time you eat the carbs it the calorie deficit.
I'm pretty sure I'm not confused.
pretty sure you are...
nope, I am just correcting the record for science and what not.
and you are the one name calling, not me.
Now I'm name calling? Hmmm, I must've missed that one.
telling someone to "pound sand" is the equivalent of telling them to F off...
funny, you don't practice what you preach.
Oh goodness, whateverrrrrrrrrr!!! Like I said, you like to argue just for the sake of arguing. You do it in most of your posts. Not sure why but you're right, I did say I wasn't going to entertain it and here I am. Go ahead and keep arguing, not with me though.
funny, because that is exactly what you are doing....0 -
This "not eating carbsstarches" after noon or 2pm is a Bob harper/simply for life/17 day diet thing.
Does it matter for weight loss...no.
Speaking from experience of doing 2 of the above...prior to educating myself on CICO.
OP it may "seem" like you get better/quicker results but in reality that weight would be lost regardless of when you eat your carbs.
For someone who only has 4lbs left to lose ...losing 3.5lbs in a week is mainly water...probably about 3lbs...and if you ate starches/high sodium foods you would "gain" it back...but it's just water weight so it's of no real consequence.
0 -
carmel224466 wrote: »At no time did I say I was going to ignore what some people believed. I can't believe that you people have time to just argue on myfitnesspal! Some of you have written thousands of posts!!! Just relax, everyone seems to be doing well for their own bodies and maybe what works for some people doesn't work for others. The condescending attitudes are not necessary.
This.0 -
nicfitnesszone wrote: »carmel224466 wrote: »At no time did I say I was going to ignore what some people believed. I can't believe that you people have time to just argue on myfitnesspal! Some of you have written thousands of posts!!! Just relax, everyone seems to be doing well for their own bodies and maybe what works for some people doesn't work for others. The condescending attitudes are not necessary.
This.
Not everyone has that condescending attitude. It's just a select few. If you can weed those out, it is possible to get great information on here.0 -
carmel224466 wrote: »At no time did I say I was going to ignore what some people believed. I can't believe that you people have time to just argue on myfitnesspal! Some of you have written thousands of posts!!! Just relax, everyone seems to be doing well for their own bodies and maybe what works for some people doesn't work for others. The condescending attitudes are not necessary.
You realize some of "us" have been here for years right?
You have time to tell those with thousands of posts we are silly so...pot meet kettle.
0 -
ChrisManch wrote: »When scientists measure the calories in food what they do is dry out out completely in an oven and then burn it in an oxygen atmosphere and measure how much heat it produces.
However this is not how your body digest foods, it is much more complex than that. You can't get MORE calories out of the food, but you can get less.
Your digestive system detects when food is present, and then release enzymes to break it down. It evolved for a mixed diet of fat, protein and carbs and it works very efficiently for that.
However they way it detects "food" is to detect carbs, so when carbs are present in food it releases enzymes, including those that break down fat. If you don't have carbs in your meal then much less of the fat enzymes are released and you absorb less of the calories from the fat. It takes a few hours for the fat enzymes to stop working.
So if your evening meal calories are coming from fat and protein, with less carbs, you'll absorb less of the energy from the fat in that meal. This is how low carb diets work.
It doesn't take many carbs to turn on the fat enzyme production, the odd cookie (biscuit) can undo any benefit.
Fat and Protein also make you less hungry.
So eating carbs and protein for half the day, and protein and fat for the other half can mean you absorb less of the calories in the food overall. But you must have a gap of about 5 hours between the 2 sets of meals for it to work.
piss off with your broscience-2 -
nicfitnesszone wrote: »carmel224466 wrote: »At no time did I say I was going to ignore what some people believed. I can't believe that you people have time to just argue on myfitnesspal! Some of you have written thousands of posts!!! Just relax, everyone seems to be doing well for their own bodies and maybe what works for some people doesn't work for others. The condescending attitudes are not necessary.
This.
Not everyone has that condescending attitude. It's just a select few. If you can weed those out, it is possible to get great information on here.
you mean great information on the pseudo science of carb timing and no carbs after 2pm?0 -
I think the key to this article is the window time that the majority of carbs consumed. This explains how I was able to show similar results by eating all of my daily carb amount in a 6 hour window. I know that they ate them at nite but it was that they ate 80% of their carbs in a small window, the evening. This group losing more than the group that slowly titrated the same amount of carbs throughout the day. Eating my carb in this fashion has really help my get to where I am now. It might be amplified sensitivity do to the fact that I have pre-diabetes. This is only my onion. This is my first day in this community I did not mean to cause a stir.JessNelson_ wrote: »Conclusion quote: "Overall the people eating the majority of their carbs at night lost more bodyfat and had better markers of health bey the end of the study than those who ate more of their carbs during the day time."
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/carbs-at-night-fat-loss-killer-or-imaginary-boogeyman.html
0 -
nicfitnesszone wrote: »carmel224466 wrote: »At no time did I say I was going to ignore what some people believed. I can't believe that you people have time to just argue on myfitnesspal! Some of you have written thousands of posts!!! Just relax, everyone seems to be doing well for their own bodies and maybe what works for some people doesn't work for others. The condescending attitudes are not necessary.
This.
Not everyone has that condescending attitude. It's just a select few. If you can weed those out, it is possible to get great information on here.
you mean great information on the pseudo science of carb timing and no carbs after 2pm?
Nope0 -
-
carmel224466 wrote: »It's also one of Bob Haper's rules for weight loss?
calorie deficit is the only rule for weight loss.
Okay, calorie deficit is not the only rule for weight loss. It is a requirement for (normal) weight loss. Necrosis, parasites, malabsorption (Crohn's, celiac, diverticulitus, bariatric surgery, stomach flu, lactose intolerance...), and dehydration all lead to weight loss despite not being in a caloric deficit.
@carmel224466,
One pound of pure fat contains roughly 3,500 Calories (kcal). It is the most dense source of long-term stored energy in the body. The second most-dense is your skeletal muscles. Fully-hydrated muscle contains roughly 75% water. Since fat contains 9 calories per gram, and protein contains 4 calories per gram, muscles contain roughly 400 Calories per pound. The third most-dense and medium term source of stored energy is glycogen. Glycogen is also roughly 75% water with the remainder being glucose (blood sugar). The math works out to it also being roughly 400 Calories per pound. Your body is limited in the amount of glycogen that you can store. You can hold about a pound in your liver and 3-4 pounds in your muscles.
So if you burn through all of your glycogen, you can lose 4 pounds with a calorie deficit of 1600 Calories. When you eat carbs, you build up your glycogen stores. So if you deprive your body of carbs, you lose "water weight". If you deprive your body of protein (under deficit), you lose "water weight" and muscle mass. You may be losing fat at a steady rate regardless of when you eat carbs, but your weight will fluctuate accordingly.
Now here's the x-factor: Limiting when you eat carbs (like how you describe or intermediate fasting) has an affect on your insulin and possibly adrenaline levels. Insulin causes your body to store energy (even though diabetics can and do lose weight with a caloric deficit). Adrenaline increases when your blood sugar gets too low. And that makes you burn more Calories (by being more active). It's your body telling you, "hey, go get me some food".
So if you feel more energetic when you limit afternoon carbs, you should do it.
Good Luck!0 -
kozykondition1 wrote: »carmel224466 wrote: »It's also one of Bob Haper's rules for weight loss?
calorie deficit is the only rule for weight loss.
Okay, calorie deficit is not the only rule for weight loss. It is a requirement for (normal) weight loss. Necrosis, parasites, malabsorption (Crohn's, celiac, diverticulitus, bariatric surgery, stomach flu, lactose intolerance...), and dehydration all lead to weight loss despite not being in a caloric deficit.
No - those things just affect the overall equation.
0 -
kozykondition1 wrote: »carmel224466 wrote: »It's also one of Bob Haper's rules for weight loss?
calorie deficit is the only rule for weight loss.
Okay, calorie deficit is not the only rule for weight loss. It is a requirement for (normal) weight loss. Necrosis, parasites, malabsorption (Crohn's, celiac, diverticulitus, bariatric surgery, stomach flu, lactose intolerance...), and dehydration all lead to weight loss despite not being in a caloric deficit.
@carmel224466,
One pound of pure fat contains roughly 3,500 Calories (kcal). It is the most dense source of long-term stored energy in the body. The second most-dense is your skeletal muscles. Fully-hydrated muscle contains roughly 75% water. Since fat contains 9 calories per gram, and protein contains 4 calories per gram, muscles contain roughly 400 Calories per pound. The third most-dense and medium term source of stored energy is glycogen. Glycogen is also roughly 75% water with the remainder being glucose (blood sugar). The math works out to it also being roughly 400 Calories per pound. Your body is limited in the amount of glycogen that you can store. You can hold about a pound in your liver and 3-4 pounds in your muscles.
So if you burn through all of your glycogen, you can lose 4 pounds with a calorie deficit of 1600 Calories. When you eat carbs, you build up your glycogen stores. So if you deprive your body of carbs, you lose "water weight". If you deprive your body of protein (under deficit), you lose "water weight" and muscle mass. You may be losing fat at a steady rate regardless of when you eat carbs, but your weight will fluctuate accordingly.
Now here's the x-factor: Limiting when you eat carbs (like how you describe or intermediate fasting) has an affect on your insulin and possibly adrenaline levels. Insulin causes your body to store energy (even though diabetics can and do lose weight with a caloric deficit). Adrenaline increases when your blood sugar gets too low. And that makes you burn more Calories (by being more active). It's your body telling you, "hey, go get me some food".
So if you feel more energetic when you limit afternoon carbs, you should do it.
Good Luck!
those are all factored into the CI or CO of CICO ...so it still comes down to CICO and calorie deficits.
protein elicits an insulin response too, but I don't see anyone saying to limit that, or to time it....why is it always bad old carbs that are always blamed for the insulin spike???0 -
Thank you kozykondition1! I can eat 1,200 calories every single day and some weeks will not lose a single pound. I understand that calorie deficits are necessary to loose weight but it doesn't always work out so nice and neat for me. I work out 6 times per week and never eat over 1200 cals and some weeks don't loose a pound. I think the quality of the calories can be just as important. My body seems to be able to metabolize vegetables and lean meats better than a Lean Cuisine Panini for dinner. I'm not on a low carb diet that everyone keeps claiming makes you loose tons of water weight. I eat carbs for breakfast and lunch, I just don't eat them after 12:00pm. I know my body and I know that it is responding well to this. Thank you for the actual advice.
The intent of this post was to see if anyone else was having success with this, not to invite judgements about whether or not I'm doing it right...I know I'm doing it right, my pants don't fit, I'm 20 lbs lighter, I don't need the approval of some lunatic on myfitnesspal telling me I'm wrong. I'm off to make my carb-free dinner now. Peace out.
-1 -
kozykondition1 wrote: »carmel224466 wrote: »It's also one of Bob Haper's rules for weight loss?
calorie deficit is the only rule for weight loss.
Okay, calorie deficit is not the only rule for weight loss. It is a requirement for (normal) weight loss. Necrosis, parasites, malabsorption (Crohn's, celiac, diverticulitus, bariatric surgery, stomach flu, lactose intolerance...), and dehydration all lead to weight loss despite not being in a caloric deficit.
@carmel224466,
One pound of pure fat contains roughly 3,500 Calories (kcal). It is the most dense source of long-term stored energy in the body. The second most-dense is your skeletal muscles. Fully-hydrated muscle contains roughly 75% water. Since fat contains 9 calories per gram, and protein contains 4 calories per gram, muscles contain roughly 400 Calories per pound. The third most-dense and medium term source of stored energy is glycogen. Glycogen is also roughly 75% water with the remainder being glucose (blood sugar). The math works out to it also being roughly 400 Calories per pound. Your body is limited in the amount of glycogen that you can store. You can hold about a pound in your liver and 3-4 pounds in your muscles.
So if you burn through all of your glycogen, you can lose 4 pounds with a calorie deficit of 1600 Calories. When you eat carbs, you build up your glycogen stores. So if you deprive your body of carbs, you lose "water weight". If you deprive your body of protein (under deficit), you lose "water weight" and muscle mass. You may be losing fat at a steady rate regardless of when you eat carbs, but your weight will fluctuate accordingly.
Now here's the x-factor: Limiting when you eat carbs (like how you describe or intermediate fasting) has an affect on your insulin and possibly adrenaline levels. Insulin causes your body to store energy (even though diabetics can and do lose weight with a caloric deficit). Adrenaline increases when your blood sugar gets too low. And that makes you burn more Calories (by being more active). It's your body telling you, "hey, go get me some food".
So if you feel more energetic when you limit afternoon carbs, you should do it.
Good Luck!
those are all factored into the CI or CO of CICO ...so it still comes down to CICO and calorie deficits.
protein elicits an insulin response too, but I don't see anyone saying to limit that, or to time it....why is it always bad old carbs that are always blamed for the insulin spike???
You don't see anyone saying to time proteins? Are you sure? Talk to a body builder about pre-workout and post workout protein timings.
I mentioned insulin and adrenaline. So what happens when you get an insulin spike from protein in the absence of carbohydrates? Your blood sugar gets jammed into your cells. And then your adrenaline spikes. And that gives you bigger lifts. Ha!
Insulin is a drug of abuse for steroid users.
Okay, CICO only factors in calories in, calories out, and fiber. Fiber is just a carb that your body can't use. Calories are otherwise based on the energy food burns in a bomb calorimeter, the work you do, and your basal metabolic rate.
I can eat at perfect maintenance for months. But what happens if I add onions to my diet? And by that I mean, I eat exactly the same thing and move exactly the same amount expect for the addition of onions. I would lose weight steadily. I am mildly allergic to onions. All of my other food goes right through me partially digested. And that is not magically accounted-for in CICO.
Do you know one of the symptoms of diabetes? Unexplained weight loss. CICO failing. Why? Because your body is now excreting some sugar instead of storing or using it all.
Peace out bro.0 -
kozykondition1 wrote: »kozykondition1 wrote: »carmel224466 wrote: »It's also one of Bob Haper's rules for weight loss?
calorie deficit is the only rule for weight loss.
Okay, calorie deficit is not the only rule for weight loss. It is a requirement for (normal) weight loss. Necrosis, parasites, malabsorption (Crohn's, celiac, diverticulitus, bariatric surgery, stomach flu, lactose intolerance...), and dehydration all lead to weight loss despite not being in a caloric deficit.
@carmel224466,
One pound of pure fat contains roughly 3,500 Calories (kcal). It is the most dense source of long-term stored energy in the body. The second most-dense is your skeletal muscles. Fully-hydrated muscle contains roughly 75% water. Since fat contains 9 calories per gram, and protein contains 4 calories per gram, muscles contain roughly 400 Calories per pound. The third most-dense and medium term source of stored energy is glycogen. Glycogen is also roughly 75% water with the remainder being glucose (blood sugar). The math works out to it also being roughly 400 Calories per pound. Your body is limited in the amount of glycogen that you can store. You can hold about a pound in your liver and 3-4 pounds in your muscles.
So if you burn through all of your glycogen, you can lose 4 pounds with a calorie deficit of 1600 Calories. When you eat carbs, you build up your glycogen stores. So if you deprive your body of carbs, you lose "water weight". If you deprive your body of protein (under deficit), you lose "water weight" and muscle mass. You may be losing fat at a steady rate regardless of when you eat carbs, but your weight will fluctuate accordingly.
Now here's the x-factor: Limiting when you eat carbs (like how you describe or intermediate fasting) has an affect on your insulin and possibly adrenaline levels. Insulin causes your body to store energy (even though diabetics can and do lose weight with a caloric deficit). Adrenaline increases when your blood sugar gets too low. And that makes you burn more Calories (by being more active). It's your body telling you, "hey, go get me some food".
So if you feel more energetic when you limit afternoon carbs, you should do it.
Good Luck!
those are all factored into the CI or CO of CICO ...so it still comes down to CICO and calorie deficits.
protein elicits an insulin response too, but I don't see anyone saying to limit that, or to time it....why is it always bad old carbs that are always blamed for the insulin spike???
You don't see anyone saying to time proteins? Are you sure? Talk to a body builder about pre-workout and post workout protein timings.
I mentioned insulin and adrenaline. So what happens when you get an insulin spike from protein in the absence of carbohydrates? Your blood sugar gets jammed into your cells. And then your adrenaline spikes. And that gives you bigger lifts. Ha!
Insulin is a drug of abuse for steroid users.
Okay, CICO only factors in calories in, calories out, and fiber. Fiber is just a carb that your body can't use. Calories are otherwise based on the energy food burns in a bomb calorimeter, the work you do, and your basal metabolic rate.
I can eat at perfect maintenance for months. But what happens if I add onions to my diet? And by that I mean, I eat exactly the same thing and move exactly the same amount expect for the addition of onions. I would lose weight steadily. I am mildly allergic to onions. All of my other food goes right through me partially digested. And that is not magically accounted-for in CICO.
Do you know one of the symptoms of diabetes? Unexplained weight loss. CICO failing. Why? Because your body is now excreting some sugar instead of storing or using it all.
Peace out bro.
I think of those things as adjustments to CI - if you aren't absorbing all the calories then your CI is decreasing.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »
I think of those things as adjustments to CI - if you aren't absorbing all the calories then your CI is decreasing.
CI are calories that you eat. It's what listed on the food label and what we track here. It is understood that CO is more difficult to measure. But too much is lost on the inaccuracy of CI.0 -
carmel224466 wrote: »Thank you kozykondition1! I can eat 1,200 calories every single day and some weeks will not lose a single pound. I understand that calorie deficits are necessary to loose weight but it doesn't always work out so nice and neat for me. I work out 6 times per week and never eat over 1200 cals and some weeks don't loose a pound. I think the quality of the calories can be just as important. My body seems to be able to metabolize vegetables and lean meats better than a Lean Cuisine Panini for dinner. I'm not on a low carb diet that everyone keeps claiming makes you loose tons of water weight. I eat carbs for breakfast and lunch, I just don't eat them after 12:00pm. I know my body and I know that it is responding well to this. Thank you for the actual advice.
The intent of this post was to see if anyone else was having success with this, not to invite judgements about whether or not I'm doing it right...I know I'm doing it right, my pants don't fit, I'm 20 lbs lighter, I don't need the approval of some lunatic on myfitnesspal telling me I'm wrong. I'm off to make my carb-free dinner now. Peace out.
You're 20 pounds lighter because you are eating at a deficit. If the only thing you did was stop eating carbs after noon, then I could see your point, but you said you did this AND ate at a deficit at the same time. Weight loss is about calories in and calories out. Time of day you eat certain foods or time of day you eat period does not matter. I don't see any lunatics here. I see people trying to counter the false claim that not eating carbs after a certain time accelerates weight lost. They're not attacking you personally. Most that comment on posts like this do so in order to give accurate information to new posters who may be lurking. Low carb diets DO cause water weight loss. So even if you don't consider yourself to be on a low carb diet, if you are limiting carbs compared to how many you ate previously, then you are likely losing mostly water weight. Yes, there are many that have made thousands of posts. Those are the people who have been here for a long time and know their stuff. I've lost 85 pounds with their advice, and have finally developed a sustainable eating plan, so I wouldn't be so dismissive about what they have to say and start calling them lunatics because they are trying to be helpful.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions