Personal trainer says no carbs til dinner
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Low carbing isn't a problem for me, but keto-type eating where you're doing low carb/high fat would be. I could low carb/high protein/low fat.
Too much fat does unhappy things to my digestive system. I'm not exactly sure what is causing this, but I haven't been quite right since I took antibiotics a year ago in this regard.
it could have something to do with the antibiotics. do you take pre or probiotics? I know some antibiotics can wreak havoc on some peoples digestive system.I also have to take enzymes to help with food digestion which I notice a big difference when I dont take them. have you tried that before? if not it may help.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »By a lot of people on MFPs standards, we should now use Tracey's medical issues to "prove" fat is bad and apply that sentiment for all. Isn't that how it works?
lol Im not saying fat is bad. high fat for me is. its not for others,but I get what you are saying. @GottaBurnEmAll .I was told to do higher carbs,moderate protein and low fat.I have a hard enough time getting enough protein in as it is.I could cut my carbs down some, but then Im hungry when I do no matter what I do.but then again everyone is different too so.
I promise I was not trying to imply I was talking about you. I just mean in general on MFP.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.2 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »By a lot of people on MFPs standards, we should now use Tracey's medical issues to "prove" fat is bad and apply that sentiment for all. Isn't that how it works?
lol Im not saying fat is bad. high fat for me is. its not for others,but I get what you are saying. @GottaBurnEmAll .I was told to do higher carbs,moderate protein and low fat.I have a hard enough time getting enough protein in as it is.I could cut my carbs down some, but then Im hungry when I do no matter what I do.but then again everyone is different too so.
What's moderate for you? My doctor didn't give me anything specific, she just told me low fat. I tend to eat around 100-120 g protein. Protein keeps me feeling full combined with carbs and very small amounts of fat. Most of my fat is from either nuts or olive oil and some low fat dairy.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Low carbing isn't a problem for me, but keto-type eating where you're doing low carb/high fat would be. I could low carb/high protein/low fat.
Too much fat does unhappy things to my digestive system. I'm not exactly sure what is causing this, but I haven't been quite right since I took antibiotics a year ago in this regard.
it could have something to do with the antibiotics. do you take pre or probiotics? I know some antibiotics can wreak havoc on some peoples digestive system.I also have to take enzymes to help with food digestion which I notice a big difference when I dont take them. have you tried that before? if not it may help.
I tried probiotics, they really didn't help.
What sort of enzymes do you need to take?
I was lactose intolerant for a good part of this past year, but that seems to have passed.
One of the confounding issues for me is that I have celiac disease, and we're prone to having worse than usual gut reactions to things like this. We're also prone to transient lactose intolerance. I have it every time I get glutened, for example.
I did develop a new food intolerance from this whole thing. I can't handle soy now.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.
Because barring medical issues and athletes, macro timing is not important to fat loss. Calories are. End of story. Being fat adapted does not expedite or maximise body fat loss, so is irrelevant to this discussion about weight loss and timing of macros to achieve that.
Degenerating into geekery about fat adaption and the burning of fat for fuel and endurance athletes and low GI and insulin spikes in the insulin resistant on a thread where a newbie with no known medical issues who is just wanting to lose a bit of weight and get fit is ridiculous. And within that context what her PT told her is absolutely not of importance to her and her goals, regardless of where that advice came from. One line about it perhaps being important for a performance athlete and that was where the PT was maybe being a bit gungho would have sufficient.
As it is she's probably been scared off the forum and her PT at this point............10 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.
And it's been established that macro timing is irrelevant for the general population.4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.
Because barring medical issues and athletes, macro timing is not important to fat loss. Calories are. End of story. Being fat adapted does not expedite or maximise body fat loss, so is irrelevant to this discussion about weight loss and timing of macros to achieve that.
Degenerating into geekery about fat adaption and the burning of fat for fuel and endurance athletes and low GI and insulin spikes in the insulin resistant on a thread where a newbie with no known medical issues who is just wanting to lose a bit of weight and get fit is ridiculous. And within that context what her PT told her is absolutely not of importance to her and her goals, regardless of where that advice came from. One line about it perhaps being important for a performance athlete and that was where the PT was maybe being a bit gungho would have sufficient.
As it is she's probably been scared off the forum and her PT at this point............GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
My point was that this discussion isn't about being fat adapted in a dietary sense and was a general point about this whole thread degenerating into that discussion. It's confusing fat loss with fat usage.
OP was told not to eat carbs before a certain time. People piped up about more fat being used blah blah blah which os of total irrelevance to body fat loss, the concern of the OP.
The discussion was about macro timing, not calories. The discussion ponders why the PT might have suggested such macro timing to help OP achieve her goals (including body fat loss). Fat usage, fat loss, and macro timing are absolutely relevant to the question of why a certain macro timing was suggested to achieve body fat loss. I don't understand how you can't see that.
And it's been established that macro timing is irrelevant for the general population.
And yet the thread is about macro timing... some of us want to talk about the topic of the thread.3 -
What's to talk about? It's been established that it's irrelevant unless you're a contest body builder.3
-
Excuse me while I find a wall for my head........8
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's to talk about? It's been established that it's irrelevant unless you're a contest body builder.
No, that hasn't been established. I'm not suggesting it is necessary, but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Excuse me while I find a wall for my head........
Be sure to properly time your head banging. You want to be an elite head banger.12 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »By a lot of people on MFPs standards, we should now use Tracey's medical issues to "prove" fat is bad and apply that sentiment for all. Isn't that how it works?
lol Im not saying fat is bad. high fat for me is. its not for others,but I get what you are saying. @GottaBurnEmAll .I was told to do higher carbs,moderate protein and low fat.I have a hard enough time getting enough protein in as it is.I could cut my carbs down some, but then Im hungry when I do no matter what I do.but then again everyone is different too so.
I promise I was not trying to imply I was talking about you. I just mean in general on MFP.
I know I got what you were saying lol thats why I said I get what you are saying 0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Excuse me while I find a wall for my head........
Be sure to properly time your head banging. You want to be an elite head banger.
Headbanger: bangs head to heavy metal.
Elite Headbanger: bangs head to Barry Manilow.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »By a lot of people on MFPs standards, we should now use Tracey's medical issues to "prove" fat is bad and apply that sentiment for all. Isn't that how it works?
lol Im not saying fat is bad. high fat for me is. its not for others,but I get what you are saying. @GottaBurnEmAll .I was told to do higher carbs,moderate protein and low fat.I have a hard enough time getting enough protein in as it is.I could cut my carbs down some, but then Im hungry when I do no matter what I do.but then again everyone is different too so.
What's moderate for you? My doctor didn't give me anything specific, she just told me low fat. I tend to eat around 100-120 g protein. Protein keeps me feeling full combined with carbs and very small amounts of fat. Most of my fat is from either nuts or olive oil and some low fat dairy.
moderate for me is around 100g-(106g is my setting).she said low fat, and said moderate protein.I also looked up FH and a lot of the studies state that high carb and moderate protein with low fat. it gave percentages but cant remember what they are lol. yeah my fats are mostly health fats,I have to definitely watch the saturated fats and most time Im under(I track that and regular fat). but I can say Im feeling better than I was,not as tired either.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »By a lot of people on MFPs standards, we should now use Tracey's medical issues to "prove" fat is bad and apply that sentiment for all. Isn't that how it works?
lol Im not saying fat is bad. high fat for me is. its not for others,but I get what you are saying. @GottaBurnEmAll .I was told to do higher carbs,moderate protein and low fat.I have a hard enough time getting enough protein in as it is.I could cut my carbs down some, but then Im hungry when I do no matter what I do.but then again everyone is different too so.
What's moderate for you? My doctor didn't give me anything specific, she just told me low fat. I tend to eat around 100-120 g protein. Protein keeps me feeling full combined with carbs and very small amounts of fat. Most of my fat is from either nuts or olive oil and some low fat dairy.
moderate for me is around 100g-(106g is my setting).she said low fat, and said moderate protein.I also looked up FH and a lot of the studies state that high carb and moderate protein with low fat. it gave percentages but cant remember what they are lol. yeah my fats are mostly health fats,I have to definitely watch the saturated fats and most time Im under(I track that and regular fat). but I can say Im feeling better than I was,not as tired either.
Yeah, I watch the sat fat too. From what I understand, it's not as bad from dairy and plants as it is from meat, but I'm still leery.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's to talk about? It's been established that it's irrelevant unless you're a contest body builder.
No, that hasn't been established. I'm not suggesting it is necessary, but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant.
Go back a page or two and find that infographic. Take it up with Alan Aragon.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
I actually do this and I feel amazing. Low carb. But I disagree with only eating them for dinner. I think carbohydrates are all about fueling your workout and then recovering right after your workout.
I do complex carbohydrates 30 min. before I workout (an apple or slice of whole grain toast) with BCAAs and then I eat a simpler carb after workout (white rice, slice of white bread, something like that) with my higher protein intake.
Vegetables aren't considered to bros as carbs though, but they are a carb, just mainly fiber.
And then I try to have quite a bit of protein.
I do Intermittent Fasting, highly recommend anyone reading this to try it out. I have loved it. But everything is about what works for you. Your trainer is spot on though about lowering carbs. Our body's preferred source of energy is fats (poly or mono unsaturated). These fats burn fat which is one of the things most people do not believe, and just do some research on a high fat diet (nuts, avocados, fish, fattier meat, whole eggs).
Anyway, we all have our own opinions, do what feels right to you 2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's to talk about? It's been established that it's irrelevant unless you're a contest body builder.
No, that hasn't been established. I'm not suggesting it is necessary, but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant.
Go back a page or two and find that infographic. Take it up with Alan Aragon.
You are confusing importance with relevance. The infographic agrees with my point, but that doesn't change relevance.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
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.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
Fat adaptation means you are oxidizing fat as a primary substrate but it does not mean greater losses in body fat IF we are comparing scenarios where calories and protein are matched.9 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
In a previous reply though you said that you burn fat (dietary and body fat) faster than most. And this seems to come across as claiming that being fat adapted results in greater whole body fat loss compared to someone who isn't, and I think this is misleading.10 -
Regarding the original post:
It sounds like bad advice, and it could be bad advice, however there's a (likely incredibly) small chance that something was misunderstood, OR that he has some alternative reason for suggesting that you position your carbohydrates at night.
I can certainly think of examples where I would be a bit more concerned about the placement of carbohydrate throughout the day relative to appetite or performance/recovery aspects to training, and these things could have a downstream effect on fat loss (note: nothing outside of energy balance, but how it may influence intake/expenditure).
But at the surface, I suspect it's crap.10 -
colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
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.
Are you familiar with Krieger's work?
Highly recommend it as he's pretty thoroughly dismantled the insulin hypothesis.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/7 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
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.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
Fat adaptation means you are oxidizing fat as a primary substrate but it does not mean greater losses in body fat IF we are comparing scenarios where calories and protein are matched.midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
In a previous reply though you said that you burn fat (dietary and body fat) faster than most. And this seems to come across as claiming that being fat adapted results in greater whole body fat loss compared to someone who isn't, and I think this is misleading.
I was very clear that body fat loss isn't greater under the one circumstance over the other. If you understand something I didn't write - something that I clearly explained was NOT my point - that is on you, not me.0 -
colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
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.
The glycemic index is pretty much useless and additionally the glycemic index is not a marker of digestion rate, it's a measure of total rise in blood glucose over time.
(Just for example, glucose clearance rates have to be taken into account https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14522732)
4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
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.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.15 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »I already called him an idiot but id like to point out maybe a question,
Anyone have thoughts on why they think trainers dont make it a priority to properly research nutrition before handing out broscience? Like seriously if it was my job to make someone fit and healthy id research all aspects. Wonder why its not part of their schooling. Even i know thats rediculous and iv done no schooling just basic research on what my body requires for my journey.
Way to common.
Because if they train you into being a repeat customer, they earn more money.3 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »I already called him an idiot but id like to point out maybe a question,
Anyone have thoughts on why they think trainers dont make it a priority to properly research nutrition before handing out broscience? Like seriously if it was my job to make someone fit and healthy id research all aspects. Wonder why its not part of their schooling. Even i know thats rediculous and iv done no schooling just basic research on what my body requires for my journey.
Way to common.
I think one potential contributing factor is the low barrier to entry to become a personal trainer and even within that there are varying degrees of thoroughness in the different training certification courses. Some can be completed in 1 weekend, others take several months, but generally speaking even the major ones have rather low entry requirements.
Another issue could possibly be the quality of what's being taught. I thought NASM was a bit hit or miss overall. Definitely enough things I disagreed with which caused me to not recertify.
Finally I would tend to think that most personal trainers don't follow what they were taught in a strict sense, and I can't say I blame them even though I don't agree with the end result at times. For example there were plenty of things I did differently than what I learned through NASM (for example, I don't like their program design philosophy at all) because I think I can do a better job using other methods.
It wouldn't surprise me if many trainers think this way and they use a combination of what they've learned through multiple sources (and perhaps personal experience) and try to apply that.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
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.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions