Personal trainer says no carbs til dinner
Options
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 -
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
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