Personal trainer says no carbs til dinner
Options
Replies
-
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.
You know what? Spare us mere mortals your condescension. We understand the difference between oxidation and loss just fine.
I also have never confused circulating dietary fat with body fat. Your insistence that other people keep doing this is getting tiring. Your insistence that everyone else is too dense to keep up with your nuanced and complicated arguments is... I'll have to hold my tongue. Let's just say that this really isn't as complicated to understand as you seem to think it is and we folks in the cheap seats have understood you all along.
10 -
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.
Which might matter if (1) you were someone for whom not eating carbs reduced appetite, and (2) were not counting calories but relying on natural appetite control for losses. The trainer doesn't seem to have had reason to assume that either applied to OP.
Anyone who claims that reducing "carbs" uniformly decreases appetite or that eating "carbs" uniformly increases appetite (especially given the diversity of the group carbs) is ignoring the evidence.1 -
BruinsGal_91 wrote: »Time to get a new trainer.
He might be a good trainer but don't take his advice on nutrition.3 -
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.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: 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.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
No, this isn't "synonymous use." One is the means and the other is the intended end.
If you understood me perfectly, you would realize that we don't really disagree on much. You don't understand very well at all because you continue to misunderstand "burn" as "lose" and "fat" as "only body fat." I trust that you truly believe that you understand me, but it is clear to me that you do not.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: 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.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.8 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
No, this isn't "synonymous use." One is the means and the other is the intended end.
If you understood me perfectly, you would realize that we don't really disagree on much. You don't understand very well at all because you continue to misunderstand "burn" as "lose" and "fat" as "only body fat." I trust that you truly believe that you understand me, but it is clear to me that you do not.
No, I don't.
It's convenient for you to keep thinking that I do, but I don't.
I've tried to isolate the conversation to the portion of fat that is body fat that is lost since that is the OP's concern and was the topic of the thread, but I'm not under any misconceptions in what happens with fat oxidation in fat adapted people.
In other words, I tried to move the conversation towards what the OP was concerned about, but you were just so interested in what you had to say about yourself that it didn't matter.
And you've been repeatedly insulting me ever since. Please stop.
8 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
No, this isn't "synonymous use." One is the means and the other is the intended end.
If you understood me perfectly, you would realize that we don't really disagree on much. You don't understand very well at all because you continue to misunderstand "burn" as "lose" and "fat" as "only body fat." I trust that you truly believe that you understand me, but it is clear to me that you do not.
You keep insisting that so many people don't understand you. When I am speaking with a group and one misunderstands, that's on them. When most of the group misunderstand, I find it helpful to reevaluate the delivery of my message. Usually, it's an issue with my presentation. You certainly have a special brand of condescension when you are bringing people down and questioning their intellect, when there are many people who aren't getting your message. Might be time to consider that the problem isn't everyone else.11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
No, this isn't "synonymous use." One is the means and the other is the intended end.
If you understood me perfectly, you would realize that we don't really disagree on much. You don't understand very well at all because you continue to misunderstand "burn" as "lose" and "fat" as "only body fat." I trust that you truly believe that you understand me, but it is clear to me that you do not.
No, I don't.
It's convenient for you to keep thinking that I do, but I don't.
I've tried to isolate the conversation to the portion of fat that is body fat that is lost since that is the OP's concern and was the topic of the thread, but I'm not under any misconceptions in what happens with fat oxidation in fat adapted people.
In other words, I tried to move the conversation towards what the OP was concerned about, but you were just so interested in what you had to say about yourself that it didn't matter.
And you've been repeatedly insulting me ever since. Please stop.
I haven't insulted you once. Perhaps there is something else you misunderstood.
If you want to "isolate the conversation to the portion of fat that is body fat," then you can't carry everything forward related to "using fat" from all sources and just drop the description "dietary" while keeping the explanation that applies to both dietary and body fat. The explanation has to be left behind along with the term it describes.0 -
jeffkirkwold wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »jeffkirkwold 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.
What I do is irrelevant. It has to be that way for all of us to remain genuine to the science and not to our experiences alone, per se. The topic of low carb or no carb before dinner is splitting hairs. The essence of the discussion revolves around the role of carbs in weight loss and weight lifting. Remember the original poster? THAT is the context. And I think it is obvious that IF the trainer is recommending no carbs before dinner, we are looking at some form of low carb diet overall. Now, even if I am wrong to reframe the question, the main point about being well informed with good science is still relevant. Regardless the topic.
The original poster, and all of us for that fact, would be better served by asking something like "Where can I find research on 'whatever' so I can evaluate the research to make an informed decision? I really don't care about what is working for you. I am me. I might be different, metabolically speaking. While I don't mind hearing about what is or is not working for you, it is no replacement for getting beyond the hype and digging into the research.
And you're wrong...my butt is ample.
If you think that most of us here don't care about science, or don't reference studies when debating, you should really spend more time on these forums before posting.
Count the number of post of mindless and thoughtless replys and then the ones with research. You will find most are unhelpful, at best. If you are one of the people that post thoughtful comments, GREAT! Just cite your sources. Don't just give a 'man' a fish, teach 'him' how to fish.
And while you are condescending, I don't mind...I have thick skin. We all owe each other some room to be less than perfect in our methods of communication. Look for the gold among the rocks and focus on that.
I'm going to present a few points for you to consider:
1. Macronutrient timing has been discussed and debated in these forums over and over again. Many times, scientific evidence is presented and discussed, which is great. A simple forum search brought me to a great discussion on the subject: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10464471/macronutrient-timing
2. Low carb vs. moderate/high carb has been debated ad nauseum on these forums as well, again with sources cited and intelligent scientific discussion.
3. The OP asked for basic advice. She did not ask for a scientific debate, especially not one involving the benefits of low-carb or fat adaptation. Giving basic advice is just fine when there are plenty of resources to look through on this very forum. Studies and other sources should not need to be posted in every single general discussion thread. It is possible to contribute to a discussion without using a bibliography as your signature. Many people are simply not interested.
4. I doubt the trainer who gave her the advice in the first place provided her with credible sources.
5. As has been mentioned before, there is a debate section that is chock full of actual debates for people who are interested. Please feel free to go here and post a thread if you wish: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/nutrition-debate
6. I have not been condescending to you. I've asked you direct questions. Being condescending would involve passive-aggressively insulting you and implying that you were not interested in discussion because you didn't provide sources (which you didn't).
7. There are many people on this forum whom I trust and who are knowledgeable in many aspects of nutrition and physiology. I have "found the gold among the rocks" already, as you say. Your posts have not led me to believe that you will be one of them.
Be well.15 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: 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.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
The FASTER study looked into it for elite endurance athletes. Those who elite athletes who were fat adapted burned an astonishing amount of fat.
http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf
It sort of makes sense. We carry around tens of thousands of calories of fat to use and only a couple thousand calories of glycogen. Fat adapted individuals will tap into those fat stores faster and easier than those who eat high or moderate carbs. Those who use carb timing or back loading probably won't be fat adapted, I would imagine. And those of us who are fat adapted and not exercising will not reap the same benefits as these elite athetes either.
Not just elite, but ultra endurance. We're talking people who do up to 100 mile races (if you can call that a race) here. Outside of those very specific circumstances, i.e. if higher intensity is required, well...
http://www.mysportscience.com/single-post/2016/12/01/Ketogenic-diets-for-athletes
I did not read all of that blog. I was just backing up someone's point that if one is fat adapted (been keto for over a month or so) then they will burn fat at a higher rate than other people, especially during exercise (in elite endurance athletes). I never said it was best for performance in all athletics, although I can't think a single other study that looks at fat adapted athletes in other sports. I doubt there are any. Even the ones mentioned in that blog you linked were just for 4-7 weeks, and some were just LCHF and others would be during adaptation stage, and so not really relevant.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
The FASTER study looked into it for elite endurance athletes. Those who elite athletes who were fat adapted burned an astonishing amount of fat.
http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf
It sort of makes sense. We carry around tens of thousands of calories of fat to use and only a couple thousand calories of glycogen. Fat adapted individuals will tap into those fat stores faster and easier than those who eat high or moderate carbs. Those who use carb timing or back loading probably won't be fat adapted, I would imagine. And those of us who are fat adapted and not exercising will not reap the same benefits as these elite athetes either.
Whats also being lost is that those who eat more fat store more fat. Body fat % or fat mass will not be accelerated when compared to two isocaloric diets where protein is constant.
True. Eat more fat, burn more dietary fat and less body fat. Eat too much fat, burn only dietary fat and store some body fat.
Although I lose fat at a faster rate than expected when I eat ketogenic. Slightly accelerated in my case but it could be due to health issues being addressed (IR and autoimmunity) as well as reduced appetite. The best advantages to LCHF diets I've seen are transient 100kcal advantage or up to a couple hundred kcal.
But I'm off topic. OP is not interested in keto, just wondering about delaying carb intake over a 24 hour window. Most low carb discussions will be relevant here.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: 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.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?
I think the bigger question is, why do you think people need to understand? You seem to be belaboring a point that is not relevant to the OP, or really, to anyone. So why is it so crucial to you that people get your point? It has derailed this thread for pages upon pages, probably scared off the OP, and frustrated not only you but everyone trying to argue with you as well as those reading along. This isn't the first time this has happened on these boards so I'm genuinely curious, when these conversations devolve into the pedantic semantic arguments that so often seem to happen, what is your end goal with this?5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: 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.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?
You explained it by repeating the same stuff over and over. To add to what I already wrote, it's simple:
Your preferred energy source is fat. Fat loss does not change.
5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: 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.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?
I think the bigger question is, why do you think people need to understand? You seem to be belaboring a point that is not relevant to the OP, or really, to anyone. So why is it so crucial to you that people get your point? It has derailed this thread for pages upon pages, probably scared off the OP, and frustrated not only you but everyone trying to argue with you as well as those reading along. This isn't the first time this has happened on these boards so I'm genuinely curious, when these conversations devolve into the pedantic semantic arguments that so often seem to happen, what is your end goal with this?
My point is relevant to the OP, as I've thoroughly explained.
It seems like a lot of people want to argue with me despite that they actually agree (and don't realize it). Others inability to understand is what has made that point repeated in different ways repeatedly. If the argument is: "Everyone can't understand because you didn't say it right." Then my question is: How should I have said it so that everyone does understand? That's useful because the lack of understanding is what has caused several users to argue, despite that they seem to agree with the core point.0 -
jeffkirkwold wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jeffkirkwold wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »jeffkirkwold 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.
What I do is irrelevant. It has to be that way for all of us to remain genuine to the science and not to our experiences alone, per se. The topic of low carb or no carb before dinner is splitting hairs. The essence of the discussion revolves around the role of carbs in weight loss and weight lifting. Remember the original poster? THAT is the context. And I think it is obvious that IF the trainer is recommending no carbs before dinner, we are looking at some form of low carb diet overall. Now, even if I am wrong to reframe the question, the main point about being well informed with good science is still relevant. Regardless the topic.
The original poster, and all of us for that fact, would be better served by asking something like "Where can I find research on 'whatever' so I can evaluate the research to make an informed decision? I really don't care about what is working for you. I am me. I might be different, metabolically speaking. While I don't mind hearing about what is or is not working for you, it is no replacement for getting beyond the hype and digging into the research.
And you're wrong...my butt is ample.
If you think that most of us here don't care about science, or don't reference studies when debating, you should really spend more time on these forums before posting.
Count the number of post of mindless and thoughtless replys and then the ones with research. You will find most are unhelpful, at best. If you are one of the people that post thoughtful comments, GREAT! Just cite your sources. Don't just give a 'man' a fish, teach 'him' how to fish.
And while you are condescending, I don't mind...I have thick skin. We all owe each other some room to be less than perfect in our methods of communication. Look for the gold among the rocks and focus on that.
Again, as pointed out above, this is the general diet and weight loss help section - NOT debate. Many posters are not interested in doing extensive research, reading peer reviewed journal articles, getting a deeper understanding of physiology and biochemistry, they simply want a sounding board to see if what they are already thinking makes sense (which is exactly how I read the OP's question). Now often times, these discussions go off on tangents that are not really germane to the OP's question at all - which is what has happened here.
For you to come in and make sweeping accusations against the community at large shows a great lack of understanding of the culture of this forum. There are members here who have vast knowledge in these areas who are happy to post credible scientific studies, there are members who patiently explain the science to those looking for a more layman's understanding of what those studies said. There are also people who come in blasting broscience and promoting concepts that have little to no relevance for the average person just looking for weight loss and increasing general fitness and health. That is largely what you are seeing in this particular thread - without knowing more details about the conversation between OP and her trainer, the assumption is that his advice may have been off base for her particular needs and desires, and telling her bluntly "get a new trainer" or "don't listen to a trainer for dietary advice" doesn't really need extensive annotated references to be good advice...
I respectfully disagree. On nearly everything you said. You assume way too much about what users of this board want. The only thing sweeping about my comments are to those offering stupid one line retorts on how the trainer is an idiot.
Are you that person? If not, carry on. But don't assume people want more or less research to go with their opinions. Further, for those that don't want research...well, I would hope to convince you otherwise but we're not just talking about what color my dress should be at the ball.
As for your precious culture, perhaps that need some examination too. Perhaps we have allowed ourselves to be too polite so that we can be liked and feel supported by others. Just maybe, people like me can shake things up a little and we can eventually develop a culture where opinions are supported by facts and people also develop the ability to tolerate slight and sarcasm from time to time. Wouldn't that be a nice place to live?
Honestly: No. I don't see anything particularly nice about direct personal insults. That may be the type of forum you like -- I am sure there are many places out there where you can find the atmosphere you prefer.11 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: 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.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?
I think the bigger question is, why do you think people need to understand? You seem to be belaboring a point that is not relevant to the OP, or really, to anyone. So why is it so crucial to you that people get your point? It has derailed this thread for pages upon pages, probably scared off the OP, and frustrated not only you but everyone trying to argue with you as well as those reading along. This isn't the first time this has happened on these boards so I'm genuinely curious, when these conversations devolve into the pedantic semantic arguments that so often seem to happen, what is your end goal with this?
My point is relevant to the OP, as I've thoroughly explained.
It seems like a lot of people want to argue with me despite that they actually agree (and don't realize it). Others inability to understand is what has made that point repeated in different ways repeatedly. If the argument is: "Everyone can't understand because you didn't say it right." Then my question is: How should I have said it so that everyone does understand? That's useful because the lack of understanding is what has caused several users to argue, despite that they seem to agree with the core point.
I think you are failing to see the whole picture. Calories and protein being equal, there is NO difference in fat loss regardless of when you consume your nutrients. And even if we didn't look at timing and looked at total consumption, it still would be meaningless. Whether you have a preferred source of fat or carbs, is doesn't matter in regards to fat loss. Only energy balance matters. There is no metabolic advantage to any of these diets.
In the context of the OP, it doesn't matter when she eats carbs. And I suspect her trainer is working off anecdotal evidence which has help those not tracking calories, to reduce calories.3 -
About 5 years ago I flipped my daily diet upside down and ate the majority of my calories and carbohydrates in the evening. Before that time I had lost 100lbs and had kept it off for 7 years but I was struggling a bit because I was still believing the myths of eating 6 small meals and eating less at night.
Both of those myths go against how I like to eat.
I've always been more hungry at night and also prefer a few large meals vs smaller and more frequent eating.
So even though it went against everything I believed to be true I made the switch.
This leap of faith was a tremendous blessing to me. Since then I never struggle and I've lost even more weight.
Thr truth is, as others have said, it doesn't matter how many meals you have or when you have them, so eat the way you prefer to eat and focus on your daily calories goal. This journey is so much easier when you don't have to fight against yourself.17 -
Russellb97 wrote: »About 5 years ago I flipped my daily diet upside down and ate the majority of my calories and carbohydrates in the evening. Before that time I had lost 100lbs and had kept it off for 7 years but I was struggling a bit because I was still believing the myths of eating 6 small meals and eating less at night.
Both of those myths go against how I like to eat.
I've always been more hungry at night and also prefer a few large meals vs smaller and more frequent eating.
So even though it went against everything I believed to be true I made the switch.
This leap of faith was a tremendous blessing to me. Since then I never struggle and I've lost even more weight.
Thr truth is, as others have said, it doesn't matter how many meals you have or when you have them, so eat the way you prefer to eat and focus on your daily calories goal. This journey is so much easier when you don't have to fight against yourself.
Exactly. One of the greatest factors in dietary success is whether or not you will be able to stick with it. Macros and timing is irrelevant with regards to weight loss except under specific circumstances, such as health conditions and elite athletes.
Wow, that you stuck to a way of eating that didn't fit your preferences for so long! So many people would have given up.
ETA: I shouldn't say macros are irrelevant, appropriate levels of proteins and fats are necessary for proper body functioning and there is satiety issues which are driven, in part by personal preference.4 -
The moderation team has finished reviewing and cleaning this thread. Please make sure to stay on topic and follow the community guidelines found: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions