Best time to stop eating on an evening?

PaulaWallaDingDong

lionkingbg wrote: »

Speaking purely in terms of weight loss, macronutrient ratios do not matter at all. G.

Have you ever heard of inner body process such as conversion the fats into energy? e.g. When you don't eat carbs all day, your body starts spending fat stocks instead of glucose. You would say: the same thing is if you spend carbs. But, "losing weight" is not only to have less kilograms/pounds! In my opinion key fact is get the rid of fats, (and build muscles if you want)!

Are you implying that if you DO eat carbs and lose weight, the weight lost was composed of glucose, rather than fat burned due to lack of fuel ingested?

lionkingbg

No. I imply it will take more time to lose weight in that case.

juggernaut1974

lionkingbg wrote: »

Have you ever heard of inner body process such as conversion the fats into energy? e.g. When you don't eat carbs all day, your body starts spending fat stocks instead of glucose. You would say: the same thing is if you spend carbs. But, "losing weight" is not only to have less kilograms/pounds! In my opinion key fact is get the rid of fats, (and build muscles if you want)!

It's not the lack of carbs that causes this though...it's the lack of calories in general.

You could reduce proteins or fats in your diet (assuming you create an overall calorie deficit by doing so) to get the same effect. (Or, more likely, proportionally reduce all macronutrients)

That's what people are trying to say.

juggernaut1974

lionkingbg wrote: »

No. I imply it will take more time to lose weight in that case.

The time it takes is a function of the size of your calorie deficit - not the makeup of your macronutrient breakdown.

With the possible exception of a 'whoosh' of water weight lost at the initial onset of a lower-carb diet...but as you noted, the goal is generally body fat loss, not simply scale weight loss.

lemurcat12

lionkingbg wrote: »

No. I imply it will take more time to lose weight in that case.

You are wrong.

If you eat 2000 calories of fat and protein and burn 2400 calories, your body will need an additional 400 calories and will take it from your body (mostly fat, some muscle).

If you eat 2000 calories of fat and protein and carbs and burn 2400 calories, your body will need an additional 400 calories and will take it from your body (mostly fat, some muscle).

In both cases you are fueling your body in various ways. If in ketosis, mainly from ketones and the fat you are eating. If not (i.e., as we typically do based on the diets that basically all traditional human populations eat), we burn both fat and glycogen in varying amounts depending on what's available and how intense your activity is. But ultimately you need to make up the deficit, so you will do so from your body.

The idea that you burn more fat overall with the same deficit if you don't eat carbs just doesn't seem to make any sense if you think it through.

Of course, if you burn more doing one or the other you may be better off. Personally I find that I feel more energetic when eating a healthy diet with a standard amount of carbs (40-55%), but I'm sure people vary. I've been interested in sports nutrition lately, especially related to running and biking (and marathon training), and the usual advice is that fat doesn't work for intense activity, although there can be benefits to training your body to use fat more effectively (fasted runs, more work at the threshold).

AnvilHead

lionkingbg wrote: »

Have you ever heard of inner body process such as conversion the fats into energy? e.g. When you don't eat carbs all day, your body starts spending fat stocks instead of glucose. You would say: the same thing is if you spend carbs. But, "losing weight" is not only to have less kilograms/pounds! In my opinion key fact is get the rid of fats, (and build muscles if you want)!

Yes, I certainly have heard of it. In case you didn't know, it's called 'gluconeogenesis' - that may help you Google it so you can learn more about it and have a better understanding yourself (along with the rest of how metabolism works, which you've shown a pretty severe lack of understanding so far). In your studies, you may learn that it's a very inefficient process involving many steps, and doesn't simply result in the fat melting off your body if you stop eating carbs. Substrate utilization is irrelevant to weight loss. If you're going to start arguing that a ketogenic diet holds a metabolic advantage for purposes of weight loss, tighten up your suspenders and fasten your seatbelt - you've got a long battle ahead of you.

You'll also learn that lipogenesis (that's a scientific word for the conversion of carbohydrates to fat) doesn't occur significantly in the face of a caloric deficit. In simple terms, it means if you're burning more calories than you're taking in, your body can't create something from nothing.

Re: the bolded part; one process is catabolic, the other is anabolic. Look up those terms and you'll understand why being in a caloric deficit is not an optimal environment for building muscle. It can happen - under certain conditions and to a certain degree - but you're not going to pack on pounds of muscle while eating in a caloric deficit and losing fat - no matter what your macronutrient intake looks like.

But then again, all of this goes far beyond the original question you asked - which was whether or not macronutrient ratios mattered for purposes of weight loss. Which they don't.

lionkingbg

@AnvilHead
Thanks for comprehensive clarification!

N200lz

lionkingbg wrote: »

No. I imply it will take more time to lose weight in that case.

Yep. The research I have read supports that. Two study groups at 1500 per day per subject. One group was also low carb and as a result, that group outperformed the higher carb intake group as far as weight loss over the same period of time.

Carbs are worth counting in addition to calories for the best result.

PeachyCarol

N200lz wrote: »

lionkingbg wrote: »

No. I imply it will take more time to lose weight in that case.

Yep. The research I have read supports that. Two study groups at 1500 per day per subject. One group was also low carb and as a result, that group outperformed the higher carb intake group as far as weight loss over the same period of time.

Carbs are worth counting in addition to calories for the best result.

Short term study I take it?

Long term studies usually show about the same rate of loss over time on both ways of eating.