Personal trainer says no carbs til dinner
Options
Replies
-
Is this a thing? Maybe my scepticism comes from the fact it doesn't really fit my preference... just wondering if anyone has experience of this type of diet - specifically as suggested by a PT (not a nutritionist)
Tried limiting my non-veggie carbs. Ended up gaining constipation weight despite a daily 500 deficit, and I was hungry all the time. Science-wise, carbs will have very little impact on your goals. The trainer has no business advising on nutritional or dietary matters.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
They were referring to the concept that the body's fat cells can only release so much fat per minute. Not how efficient you are at oxidizing fat.midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
1) That isn't what they said.Carlos_421 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.
Like you when you say in one post that this leads you to burn more bodyfat but in another you say you don't.
Not more body fat, just burn fat (from all sources) faster.
From all sources, including bodyfat (your own words).
Yes, I burn fat faster. Not sure how you go from "burn fat faster" to "greater quantity" (more) and "body fat" (ignoring dietary fat).
Are you arguing that I burn fat slower under my circumstances? I'm not clear on your point.
Let's math a little. Basic stuff. Concepts. I won't even use numbers.
Say you can burn more fat in an hour than I can (your claim). If we both burn fat for an hour, you burned more fat than me. THUS, one of two things happens. Either you lose more fat than I do (which you say does not occur) or you are also storing more fat than I am to make up the difference (which is what @StevenCloser keeps trying to explain to you).
In other words, if you are not losing fat faster even though you burn more of it in a given period than someone else, either they are burning it for a longer period of time to catch up (which is contrary to your elite athlete example) or you are storing more than them.
If you are burning more than they are in the same time period and those time periods are equal, you burned more fat (greater quantity).
As explained earlier, I'm eating more fat and fewer carbs. I'm burning more fat for energy while the alternative person eating a lot of carbs is using glucose instead.Carlos_421 wrote: »Not sure how you don't go from "burn fat faster" to greater quantity.
2) I didn't.Carlos_421 wrote: »If I run faster than you for the same amount of time I go further. If I run faster but we go the same distance, either I didn't run as long or I backed up at some point.
3) As pointed out earlier, burning fat faster does not suggest I burn more body fat.
1) That's exactly what they were talking about and everyone here (except you, apparently) understood what was being referenced.
2) You paying attention?
You: "I don't know how you people go from "burn fat faster" to "lose more fat."
Me: I don't understand how you don't.
You: I didn't.
What?? I see that you don't make the connection. What I don't see is how that you can't understand that burning fat more quickly than someone else for the same period of time would lead to greater fat loss if not mitigated by an increased storage of fat.
This discourse is not about us not understanding what you are trying to say. It is not about us actually agreeing on the issue but voicing it differently. It is your failure to comprehend the simple logic behind the reality of how things work due likely to your own stubborn allegiance to believing whatever makes you feel special rather than what is actually true.
Also, the fact that you eat more dietary fat and fewer carbs, thus burn more fat in a day than someone who eats higher carb does not mean that you burn fat faster. It means you burn fat more often which is very very different.
3) Yes, it's been "pointed out." Rather, you keep saying it. Just because you keep saying something over and over and telling us that we just don't understand or that we're putting words in your mouth doesn't mean that there's any legitimacy to your claims.7 -
Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........8
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
They were referring to the concept that the body's fat cells can only release so much fat per minute. Not how efficient you are at oxidizing fat.midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
1) That isn't what they said.Carlos_421 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.
Like you when you say in one post that this leads you to burn more bodyfat but in another you say you don't.
Not more body fat, just burn fat (from all sources) faster.
From all sources, including bodyfat (your own words).
Yes, I burn fat faster. Not sure how you go from "burn fat faster" to "greater quantity" (more) and "body fat" (ignoring dietary fat).
Are you arguing that I burn fat slower under my circumstances? I'm not clear on your point.
Let's math a little. Basic stuff. Concepts. I won't even use numbers.
Say you can burn more fat in an hour than I can (your claim). If we both burn fat for an hour, you burned more fat than me. THUS, one of two things happens. Either you lose more fat than I do (which you say does not occur) or you are also storing more fat than I am to make up the difference (which is what @StevenCloser keeps trying to explain to you).
In other words, if you are not losing fat faster even though you burn more of it in a given period than someone else, either they are burning it for a longer period of time to catch up (which is contrary to your elite athlete example) or you are storing more than them.
If you are burning more than they are in the same time period and those time periods are equal, you burned more fat (greater quantity).
As explained earlier, I'm eating more fat and fewer carbs. I'm burning more fat for energy while the alternative person eating a lot of carbs is using glucose instead.Carlos_421 wrote: »Not sure how you don't go from "burn fat faster" to greater quantity.
2) I didn't.Carlos_421 wrote: »If I run faster than you for the same amount of time I go further. If I run faster but we go the same distance, either I didn't run as long or I backed up at some point.
3) As pointed out earlier, burning fat faster does not suggest I burn more body fat.
1) That's exactly what they were talking about and everyone here (except you, apparently) understood what was being referenced.
2) You paying attention?
You: "I don't know how you people go from "burn fat faster" to "lose more fat."
Me: I don't understand how you don't.
You: I didn't.
What?? I see that you don't make the connection. What I don't see is how that you can't understand that burning fat more quickly than someone else for the same period of time would lead to greater fat loss if not mitigated by an increased storage of fat.
This discourse is not about us not understanding what you are trying to say. It is not about us actually agreeing on the issue but voicing it differently. It is your failure to comprehend the simple logic behind the reality of how things work due likely to your own stubborn allegiance to believing whatever makes you feel special rather than what is actually true.
Also, the fact that you eat more dietary fat and fewer carbs, thus burn more fat in a day than someone who eats higher carb does not mean that you burn fat faster. It means you burn fat more often which is very very different.
3) Yes, it's been "pointed out." Rather, you keep saying it. Just because you keep saying something over and over and telling us that we just don't understand or that we're putting words in your mouth doesn't mean that there's any legitimacy to your claims.
1) If that is what they were talking about, that isn't what they actually said. I believe everyone else read "body fat" despite that "body" was not actually said in that comment just like they did in many of mine where I wrote "fat" (from all sources). I read exactly what was written without adding extra words that change definition and context.
2) Yes, the discourse is about understanding. As I've pointed out, I don't think there is truly any disagreement... just that you and several others continue to misread and misunderstand what I'm saying. In fact, I believe that you truly believe you understand; but that doesn't change that your understanding is different than what I'm saying.
2A) The point that I burn fat faster because I'm fat adapted was supported with citations to peer-reviewed journal articles. Of course, that is when the energy is actually needed at a higher demand (i.e. while exercising). At other times, I'm burning fat faster just due to minimal availability of glucose compared to the carb consumer.
3) "Burning fat" does not automatically mean "burning [only] body fat." That is where almost all of the misunderstanding and confusion comes from here. When I say I "burn fat faster," I'm not saying I lose body fat faster. It seems to me that the phrase "burn fat" has been often misread to mean "burn [only] body fat." I've tried to clarify this several times, and yet the argument continues to be made with the presumption that "burn fat" means "burn [only] body fat."0 -
Wow...so many tangents on this thread. So, I wanted to try this. The past 2 nights, I've loaded up carbs at dinner. I can say that it has the opposite effect that I thought it would. I figured it would drive me to binge more. What happened was I woke up with a little more energy (which helped propel me through my morning workout), and I felt more satisfied right up until I went to bed each night. So. All the technicalities aside, maybe this works for some.3
-
Flapjack_Mollases wrote: »Wow...so many tangents on this thread. So, I wanted to try this. The past 2 nights, I've loaded up carbs at dinner. I can say that it has the opposite effect that I thought it would. I figured it would drive me to binge more. What happened was I woke up with a little more energy (which helped propel me through my morning workout), and I felt more satisfied right up until I went to bed each night. So. All the technicalities aside, maybe this works for some.
Did you eat zero carbohydrate until that final meal?1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........
Yes, there is another issue: It is a societal issue where "burn fat" is often misunderstood to mean "burn only body fat." This is seen in advertisements often where you see "Fat Burner" or "Burn Fat" with the expectation that target consumers will make the same misunderstanding. They often do. Just because a lot of people misunderstand "Burn Fat" to mean "Burn Body Fat" doesn't mean "Burn Body Fat" was the proper understanding. The difference between those advertisements and me is that the companies making such ads profit from the common misunderstanding.0 -
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........
Yes, there is another issue: It is a societal issue where "burn fat" is often misunderstood to mean "burn only body fat." This is seen in advertisements often where you see "Fat Burner" or "Burn Fat" with the expectation that target consumers will make the same misunderstanding. They often do. Just because a lot of people misunderstand "Burn Fat" to mean "Burn Body Fat" doesn't mean "Burn Body Fat" was the proper understanding. The difference between those advertisements and me is that the companies making such ads profit from the common misunderstanding.
I think the bigger issue is that you're using "burn" to mean something other than "lose" when you say that you burn both dietary and body-fat faster being fat adapted.9 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Did he mention why? My wife's trainer told her to have her for breakfast or lunch, but no grains/starches with dinner...but it was simply a method of keeping calories in check.
I have heard of the " no eating carbs until dinner" plan before. Supposedly low carb in the daytime keeps appetite curbed.
Thus article talks about a study where participants lost more weight waiting to eat carbs at dinner.http://www.bodybuilding.com/content/carbs-at-night-fat-loss-killer-or-imaginary-boogeyman.html1 -
Get a new trainer, this one is not educated.1
-
Flapjack_Mollases wrote: »Wow...so many tangents on this thread. So, I wanted to try this. The past 2 nights, I've loaded up carbs at dinner. I can say that it has the opposite effect that I thought it would. I figured it would drive me to binge more. What happened was I woke up with a little more energy (which helped propel me through my morning workout), and I felt more satisfied right up until I went to bed each night. So. All the technicalities aside, maybe this works for some.
Did you eat zero carbohydrate until that final meal?
Not 0. i had eggs for bfast, so 0 there. A salad with avacado and tomatoes (so a few carbs), then a snack of extra dark cocoa and almonds (so a few more carbs), and then grilled chicken, 2 sweet potatoes and squash for dinner. So overall, still a low carb diet, I just moved them all to the evening. I basically just switched my lunch/dinner meals.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.
I know I am late to this, but frankly, the small difference that such macro timing will make for the average person makes it not worth doing. If the OP was a competitive Bodybuilder or Fitness competitor, it would make sense because that small different may be what keeps them from winning, but for jane or joe average, it is miserable advice, especially if it does not fit their eating pattern as it will simply lead to non-compliance in terms of their calorie goal in the long run.4 -
rileysowner wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.
I know I am late to this, but frankly, the small difference that such macro timing will make for the average person makes it not worth doing. If the OP was a competitive Bodybuilder or Fitness competitor, it would make sense because that small different may be what keeps them from winning, but for jane or joe average, it is miserable advice, especially if it does not fit their eating pattern as it will simply lead to non-compliance in terms of their calorie goal in the long run.
It is only miserable advice for some. Other Janes and Joe's might benefit.
I changed my eating pattern from being tied to 6 small meals a day to intermittent fasting. I quite enjoy the freedom from being hungry all day and terrible cravings. In my experience, I also found that changing macros and meal timing helped me. I like not being hungry!1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........
Yes, there is another issue: It is a societal issue where "burn fat" is often misunderstood to mean "burn only body fat." This is seen in advertisements often where you see "Fat Burner" or "Burn Fat" with the expectation that target consumers will make the same misunderstanding. They often do. Just because a lot of people misunderstand "Burn Fat" to mean "Burn Body Fat" doesn't mean "Burn Body Fat" was the proper understanding. The difference between those advertisements and me is that the companies making such ads profit from the common misunderstanding.
I think the bigger issue is that you're using "burn" to mean something other than "lose" when you say that you burn both dietary and body-fat faster being fat adapted.
That is the same issue, with the exception of determining what meaning of "burn" is correct.
Since I can see the issue is related to understanding of the word "burn" and that many here seem to think only body fat can be "burned," here is some additional clarification that should help everyone understand: Everywhere that I've written "burn" (except where quoted from others) can be replaced with "use" AND "fat" does not mean "body fat" nor "only body fat" except when, and only when specified as "body fat." In cases specified as both "body fat" and "dietary fat" (or any variations of that phrase where the words "body" and "dietary" are both included as adjectives of "fat," those adjectives must both remain intact in order to preserve meaning.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........
Yes, there is another issue: It is a societal issue where "burn fat" is often misunderstood to mean "burn only body fat." This is seen in advertisements often where you see "Fat Burner" or "Burn Fat" with the expectation that target consumers will make the same misunderstanding. They often do. Just because a lot of people misunderstand "Burn Fat" to mean "Burn Body Fat" doesn't mean "Burn Body Fat" was the proper understanding. The difference between those advertisements and me is that the companies making such ads profit from the common misunderstanding.
I think the bigger issue is that you're using "burn" to mean something other than "lose" when you say that you burn both dietary and body-fat faster being fat adapted.
That is the same issue, with the exception of determining what meaning of "burn" is correct.
Since I can see the issue is related to understanding of the word "burn" and that many here seem to think only body fat can be "burned," here is some additional clarification that should help everyone understand: Everywhere that I've written "burn" (except where quoted from others) can be replaced with "use" AND "fat" does not mean "body fat" nor "only body fat" except when, and only when specified as "body fat." In cases specified as both "body fat" and "dietary fat" (or any variations of that phrase where the words "body" and "dietary" are both included as adjectives of "fat," those adjectives must both remain intact in order to preserve meaning.
No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. The fact that you said that you burn all fat, including body fat (which would suggest that eating low to no carbs means you can decrease fat mass quicker) is where everyone had an issue. What you didn't do, at least in my opinion, is also mention that a diet higher in fat consumption, leads to greater storage of dietary fat.
There is no doubt that if you eat greater amounts of fat and less carbs, that fat oxidation increases and carbohydrate oxidation decrease. The opposite is true as well. More carbs = greater CHO oxidation, and less fat oxidation. What is really means... is nothing. It literally does not matter which energy source you chose. It's person choice based on goals. You increase fat oxidation doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. It just means that a greater amount of energy is coming from stored fats.
And theoretically, there is an unlimited ability to use fat for energy, but it also means there is an unlimited potential to store it. And you can make an argument that that means fat can be used as the primary fuel and is beneficial to elite athletes, but I would make the argument that if you look at almost every single elite athlete, it's just not as beneficial as carbs. The few exceptions or extreme still can't justify the benefit.
In the end, net energy balance will dictate fat mass loss and/or gain.5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »jeffkirkwold wrote: »I find it amusing that those who criticize the trainer provide NO credible science as to why the trainer is wrong. I also find it humorous that the original poster is asking this group of clowns for nutritional advice. Read the research yourself. Ask your trainer why no carbs til dinner and demand the science.
Dietary carbs are not necessary for the body or brain to function. We can get all the glucose our body/brain needs through moderate protein consumption as some of it is converted to glucose. I reference the works of Tim Noakes, Jeff Volek and Steve Phinney. These research doctors are at the cutting edge of research in the subject area.
I will assume the original poster is a good person and is already researching this without listening to the butt clowns that criticize low carb approaches to training. There is no one perfect diet for everyone so listening to your body, and thoughtful experimentation should be considered the best way to validate your research and opinions.
Hey butt clowns, if you can't cite your science or sources for your advice, get bent and shut up.
Hey buttless serious person (I'm guessing this is the opposite of a "butt clown"?), nobody is saying that one *must* consume high carbohydrates to be successful, we're just questioning whether or not one *must* avoid carbohydrates until dinner in order to meet one's goals.
I'm going to guess that even you, a low carber, consume at least a couple of grams of carbohydrates before dinner. The advice the OP received wasn't backed by any science, it's not practical, and it isn't necessary.
To further this point, the OP later disclosed they are a vegetarian and the advice really didn't meet both her personal preferences or was terribly practical given her dietary choices.
I don't see how that makes us all wrong.
Also, under 30 posts tells me you don't know too much about the collective knowledge of the regular posters here and their demand for scientific proof in nearly every thread that makes spurious claims. We're not Mens Health readers for the most part here!
I missed that -- yeah, that makes no sense for a vegetarian. I know some people do low carb vegetarian, but no carbohydrate until dinner vegetarian is just a recipe for crashing and burning.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
They were referring to the concept that the body's fat cells can only release so much fat per minute. Not how efficient you are at oxidizing fat.midwesterner85 wrote: »Yes, the studies cited use athletes for test subjects, but the application for fat adaptation applies to others as well. We just aren't going to put out the same level of energy for the same period of time, but that doesn't mean the energy we do use isn't affected by macro intake. The difference is that endurance athletes have the capability to be tested while they complete endurance athletic events; while the person who is not an endurance athlete cannot be tested while completing endurance athletic events because they aren't. Just like you would never be able to test my oxygen uptake while I'm piloting an aircraft... because I don't pilot aircraft.
As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day. During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
1) That isn't what they said.Carlos_421 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »As to relevance to OP, you will note that the discussion was about why the PT would suggest restricting carbs until later in the day.
And also remember that OP said her goal was simply losing fat.During that discussion, someone said "you can only burn so much fat at a time." My response was that, by becoming fat adapted, you can increase how much fat you can burn over the same time period. It sounds like OP's PT is suggesting she burns fat throughout most of the day (and protein).
Why would OP care (or her PT think she cared) about burning more total fat if bodyfat loss was the same? Usually people push the burn more fat thing because they somehow believe that that results in burning more bodyfat, which it does not.
How much fat I burn is going to depend on how much fat I eat. It adjusts accordingly.
This is exactly the point I made that everyone wants to argue about. I think we all agree, just that some may not realize it.
Like you when you say in one post that this leads you to burn more bodyfat but in another you say you don't.
Not more body fat, just burn fat (from all sources) faster.
From all sources, including bodyfat (your own words).
Yes, I burn fat faster. Not sure how you go from "burn fat faster" to "greater quantity" (more) and "body fat" (ignoring dietary fat).
Are you arguing that I burn fat slower under my circumstances? I'm not clear on your point.
Let's math a little. Basic stuff. Concepts. I won't even use numbers.
Say you can burn more fat in an hour than I can (your claim). If we both burn fat for an hour, you burned more fat than me. THUS, one of two things happens. Either you lose more fat than I do (which you say does not occur) or you are also storing more fat than I am to make up the difference (which is what @StevenCloser keeps trying to explain to you).
In other words, if you are not losing fat faster even though you burn more of it in a given period than someone else, either they are burning it for a longer period of time to catch up (which is contrary to your elite athlete example) or you are storing more than them.
If you are burning more than they are in the same time period and those time periods are equal, you burned more fat (greater quantity).
As explained earlier, I'm eating more fat and fewer carbs. I'm burning more fat for energy while the alternative person eating a lot of carbs is using glucose instead.Carlos_421 wrote: »Not sure how you don't go from "burn fat faster" to greater quantity.
2) I didn't.Carlos_421 wrote: »If I run faster than you for the same amount of time I go further. If I run faster but we go the same distance, either I didn't run as long or I backed up at some point.
3) As pointed out earlier, burning fat faster does not suggest I burn more body fat.
1) That's exactly what they were talking about and everyone here (except you, apparently) understood what was being referenced.
2) You paying attention?
You: "I don't know how you people go from "burn fat faster" to "lose more fat."
Me: I don't understand how you don't.
You: I didn't.
What?? I see that you don't make the connection. What I don't see is how that you can't understand that burning fat more quickly than someone else for the same period of time would lead to greater fat loss if not mitigated by an increased storage of fat.
This discourse is not about us not understanding what you are trying to say. It is not about us actually agreeing on the issue but voicing it differently. It is your failure to comprehend the simple logic behind the reality of how things work due likely to your own stubborn allegiance to believing whatever makes you feel special rather than what is actually true.
Also, the fact that you eat more dietary fat and fewer carbs, thus burn more fat in a day than someone who eats higher carb does not mean that you burn fat faster. It means you burn fat more often which is very very different.
3) Yes, it's been "pointed out." Rather, you keep saying it. Just because you keep saying something over and over and telling us that we just don't understand or that we're putting words in your mouth doesn't mean that there's any legitimacy to your claims.
1) If that is what they were talking about, that isn't what they actually said. I believe everyone else read "body fat" despite that "body" was not actually said in that comment just like they did in many of mine where I wrote "fat" (from all sources). I read exactly what was written without adding extra words that change definition and context.
2) Yes, the discourse is about understanding. As I've pointed out, I don't think there is truly any disagreement... just that you and several others continue to misread and misunderstand what I'm saying. In fact, I believe that you truly believe you understand; but that doesn't change that your understanding is different than what I'm saying.
2A) The point that I burn fat faster because I'm fat adapted was supported with citations to peer-reviewed journal articles. Of course, that is when the energy is actually needed at a higher demand (i.e. while exercising). At other times, I'm burning fat faster just due to minimal availability of glucose compared to the carb consumer.
3) "Burning fat" does not automatically mean "burning [only] body fat." That is where almost all of the misunderstanding and confusion comes from here. When I say I "burn fat faster," I'm not saying I lose body fat faster. It seems to me that the phrase "burn fat" has been often misread to mean "burn [only] body fat." I've tried to clarify this several times, and yet the argument continues to be made with the presumption that "burn fat" means "burn [only] body fat."
Allow me to go back and refresh your memory as to the context of the original comment you wanted to elaborate on to start proving some point here (which you insist we're all misunderstanding)
Poster A said:This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
Please note this poster's synonymous use of fat "burning" and fat losing.
Poster B responded:protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
And that's where you came in, because you only latched onto the EXACT wording, out of context, with thought only for how it applies to you specifically, without regard to the context of the conversation or how it applies to the OP's goals (body fat LOSS) and started this whole cavalcade of posts that have nothing to do with anything but a point you keep insisting no one understands.
We understand you perfectly.
You're the one who's confused here.
7 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »jeffkirkwold wrote: »Hey richIn, of course, IF you have credible science behind your opinions, you are solid. I'm referring to the jacks that just say "He's ..... wrong" with no counter argument. I hate that.
I'd rather debate with a thoughtful, well researched contributor than those just tossing advice around willy nilly. Once we all get our science together, THEN we can debate the quality of the science. That's where the men separate themselves from the boys, as it gender neutrally were.
The advice we give to people has serious consequences. Time that we all took our opinions seriously and present more than opinion, anecdotal evidence and warped articles from muscle head magazine.
The advice some give on this topic could literally kill someone or cause serious metabolic consequences. We all should be much more measured in our replies.
I acknowledge some in this topic thread DID INDEED provide research. Thank you. You are helping. But please, try to find the names of the researchers and cite the original research. I can't trust any article I see anymore on any fitness site. The bias that has been inserted is obscene.
Does intelligent, scientific debate involve name-calling, as well?
Well, ya! How else would you know who knows their stuff?
9 -
What's ironic is that this has nothing to do with anything other than satiety. If the calories are the same, and the macros are the same, then the only difference it makes is, "will this help me feel better or worse, or possibly keep me from snacking late at night?" Beyond that, all this other "scientific" information is kind of irrelevant.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions