We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Personal trainer says no carbs til dinner
Replies
-
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 have a cousin who is a personal trainer and we will argue and argue about nutrition. His argument is always, "I do this for a living and I have success with telling my clients low carb/no carb/carb timing (I can never remember which one he preaches) what are your credentials?"
"Science." Is always my reply.13 -
I've dealt with lots of trainers during my time in fitness. A lot of the one's that echo the same BS, usually had a few things in common: they worked out for a while before becoming a trainer (not like you HAVE to go to school for it) and just followed the broscience advice they learned from the gym.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.
They follow a lot of advice from muscle/fitness magazines.
They didn't take a class in actual nutrition.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
I've dealt with lots of trainers during my time in fitness. A lot of the one's that echo the same BS, usually had a few things in common: they worked out for a while before becoming a trainer (not like you HAVE to go to school for it) and just followed the broscience advice they learned from the gym.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.
They follow a lot of advice from muscle/fitness magazines.
They didn't take a class in actual nutrition.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's also relevant to note that a lot of brosciency things work, but not for the reasons people think they do - and while they work, they're certainly not essential and sometimes definitely not optimal. I guess you could call it doing the right things for the wrong reasons. Some people succeed in spite of what they do rather than because of what they do.
I've also noticed that a lot of highly respected, educated, experienced people in the fitness/nutrition field rarely speak in absolutes about much of anything. Context matters.9 -
No carbs til dinner, no sleep til Brooklyn. Them's the rules.18
-
You need carbs, have healthy ones thats all. Everything in moderation - except rapid sugars - that works for me
P0 -
It's possible that your trainer has he reasons for carb backloading. Dr. Layne Norton recently did a pretty good video on it.
https://youtu.be/LImFpkaEFxQ 3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?4 -
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.
1. It takes committment (and a few $$), to get the actual license to legitimately give diet advice. A lot of trainers do not have that level of professional integrity.
2. To be honest, training (esp for a beginner) can be a pretty grueling job--there is barely time to keep up with exercise stuff, let alone learn a new profession. Many trainers lack even a basic academic foundation in exercise physiology--how are they going to learn nutritional science as well?
3. Because of the milieu they often come from (i.e. Competitive athletics or weight room bro-world) many trainers think they know it already. There is also a higher than average degree of narcissism, which makes it harder to say "I am not qualified to go into that"--not to mention (see #4) competitive pressure because all the other trainers ARE doing it.
4. Many clients EXPECT trainers to give them meal plans and diet advice. Many times I have seen comments on forums that complain that "I've been working with a trainer for two weeks and haven't gotten a meal plan yet". There is real market pressure on trainers to be a "one stop shop" for not just exercise, but overall health advice as well.
3 -
This has been fun.
Maybe he has just noticed that this plan is more effective for his clients because a lot of people tend to overeat high carb foods vs. high protein/high fat and limiting them to a shorter time is helpful?
If you ever come around again OP you might try a moderate version of this for yourself and see what happens? You aren't married to it or anything.
Generally for me starting the day with a protein/fat meal seems to equal less hunger the rest of the day. Not a bad thing.
And I sleep better if I have carbs before bed. Also not a bad thing.
Edit: Watched the video. Thanks psuLemon.
Nice biceps Layne. And, hey, we seem to agree so that's nice.2 -
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?7
-
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?
Breath analysis says more acetone = more fat burning vs. carbs.
Doesn't equal faster weight loss though, just the fuel your body is using, and even that is changeable with diet. If you are eating a keto/low carb diet then your body has to switch to mostly fat, right?
Edit: an article on why athletes may want to know this:
joefrielsblog.com/2010/10/fat-burners-and-sugar-burners.html0 -
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll 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?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
1 -
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?
Breath analysis says more acetone = more fat burning vs. carbs.
Doesn't equal faster weight loss though, just the fuel your body is using, and even that is changeable with diet. If you are eating a keto/low carb diet then your body has to switch to mostly fat, right?
Edit: an article on why athletes may want to know this:
joefrielsblog.com/2010/10/fat-burners-and-sugar-burners.html
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll 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?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
But that doesn't differentiate between dietary fat and body fat, which is the claim being made. That more stored body fat is being burned by someone who is fat adapted. It smacks of the claims made by those who keto that they lose weight faster consuming the same number of calories as someone who eats higher/high carb. I will note that's not what was claimed here but that's the theory I feel is being pushed.2 -
VintageFeline 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?
Breath analysis says more acetone = more fat burning vs. carbs.
Doesn't equal faster weight loss though, just the fuel your body is using, and even that is changeable with diet. If you are eating a keto/low carb diet then your body has to switch to mostly fat, right?
Edit: an article on why athletes may want to know this:
joefrielsblog.com/2010/10/fat-burners-and-sugar-burners.html
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll 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?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
But that doesn't differentiate between dietary fat and body fat, which is the claim being made. That more stored body fat is being burned by someone who is fat adapted. It smacks of the claims made by those who keto that they lose weight faster consuming the same number of calories as someone who eats higher/high carb. I will note that's not what was claimed here but that's the theory I feel is being pushed.
Correct - gas analysis can't differentiate between either dietary fat / body fat or dietary carbs / glycogen.
That wasn't my point, just answering GottaBurnEmAll's question (which is why I quoted the question and added her profile name tag).
If I went back for another VO2 max test then I would be able to tell whether I am better fat adapted for endurance exercise or not but on its own it's just showing how I fuelled my exercise that day.
That endurance athletes get better adapted isn't really a debate item is it?0 -
I was eating 45-50 g's of fat per day. I was losing weight, but my BF % was dropping very slowly. Upped it to 85-100 g's per day, and I feel better, and my BF% seems to be dropping a little quicker than it was. This is purely anecdotal, but it still happened.0
-
Flapjack_Mollases wrote: »I was eating 45-50 g's of fat per day. I was losing weight, but my BF % was dropping very slowly. Upped it to 85-100 g's per day, and I feel better, and my BF% seems to be dropping a little quicker than it was. This is purely anecdotal, but it still happened.
45-50g is rather low for a male; even more so if you are active. But altering your macros could have given you increase dietary compliance and potentially regulated some hormonal issues, like low testosterone.5 -
Sounds like they took their test online and didn't actually take college classes on nutrition and/or physiology.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
College student here. I understand what you are saying and agree. However, FYI, you can take legitimate college classes online. Most colleges today offer online courses, from Harvard on down.
1 -
Flapjack_Mollases wrote: »I was eating 45-50 g's of fat per day. I was losing weight, but my BF % was dropping very slowly. Upped it to 85-100 g's per day, and I feel better, and my BF% seems to be dropping a little quicker than it was. This is purely anecdotal, but it still happened.
45-50g is rather low for a male; even more so if you are active. But altering your macros could have given you increase dietary compliance and potentially regulated some hormonal issues, like low testosterone.
I agree. I do "feel" stronger and more energetic now, whereas I used to feel almost lethargic, even during a workout.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.0 -
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?
Fat adapted people burn fat faster. All fat. Dietary and body fat. The source isn't the focus, so fat use doesn't change the source of fat. Of course if I had eaten fat recently, there will be dietary fat burned.
I really don't understand why this is so difficult to understand or why you are adding extra words to my explanation.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I weighed 207 pounds when I started with my personal trainer. He gave me a macro ratio to stick to and I told him that I'd have no trouble sticking to the protein (since it met my preferences), but as a vegetarian, the lower carb number wasn't going to happen.
A few months before our contract was due to end, I was 55 pounds lighter and ready to take a week off for vacation. He said, "I'm not even going to bother to give you the talk I normally give everyone going on vacation, you know what to do."
By the time our contract ended, I was 70 pounds lighter. He told me that I'd made him rethink a lot of what he thought he knew about macros.
Personal trainers have their own biases, but you need to do what you'll be happy with OP.
Super helpful thank you! Also a vegetarian so that's why it doesn't really work for me. I eat plenty of protein, healthy balanced diet which I keep an eye on here for calorie intake.
2 -
For those who still want to argue whether fat adapted people burn fat faster than otherwise similar individuals who are not fat adapted, here are some journal articles to get you started:
Noakes T, Volek JS, Phinney SD. Br J Sports Med 2014;48:1077–1078. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-093824
Phinney SD, Bistrian BR, Evans WJ, et al. The human metabolic response to chronic ketosis without caloric restriction: preservation of submaximal exercise capability with reduced carbohydrate oxidation. Metabolism 1983;32:769–76.
Volek JS, Noakes TD, Phinney SD. Rethinking fat as a performance fuel. Eur J Sport Sci (in press) 2014
From the first article cited:However, studies of elite athletes chronically adapted to low-carbohydrate diets has uncovered one unexpected finding— their extraordinary ability to produce energy at very high rates purely from the oxidation of fat. Thus some highly adapted runners consuming less than 10% of energy from carbohydrate are able to oxidise fat at greater than 1.5 g/min during progressive intensity exercise and consistently sustain rates of fat oxidation exceeding 1.2 g/min during exercise at ∼65% VO2max, thereby providing 56 kJ/min during prolonged exercise. The remaining energy would comfortably be covered by the oxidation of blood lactate, ketone bodies and glucose derived from gluconeogenesis. Thus a fully fat-adapted athlete able to oxidise fat at 1.5 g/min would cover his or her energy cost during an Ironman Triathlon without needing to ingest exogenous fuels especially carbohydrate. This contrasts with the need of carbohydrate-adapted athletes to ingest 90–105 g/h during prolonged exercise if they wish to maintain their performance.
ETA: For those who didn't know, the old way of thinking (i.e. not fat adapted) was that nobody can possibly use more than 1.0 g/min at the very max. With studies finding fat adapted athletes exceeding 1.5 g/min, it is clearly more.3 -
VintageFeline 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?
Breath analysis says more acetone = more fat burning vs. carbs.
Doesn't equal faster weight loss though, just the fuel your body is using, and even that is changeable with diet. If you are eating a keto/low carb diet then your body has to switch to mostly fat, right?
Edit: an article on why athletes may want to know this:
joefrielsblog.com/2010/10/fat-burners-and-sugar-burners.html
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll 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?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
But that doesn't differentiate between dietary fat and body fat, which is the claim being made. That more stored body fat is being burned by someone who is fat adapted. It smacks of the claims made by those who keto that they lose weight faster consuming the same number of calories as someone who eats higher/high carb. I will note that's not what was claimed here but that's the theory I feel is being pushed.
Correct - gas analysis can't differentiate between either dietary fat / body fat or dietary carbs / glycogen.
That wasn't my point, just answering GottaBurnEmAll's question (which is why I quoted the question and added her profile name tag).
If I went back for another VO2 max test then I would be able to tell whether I am better fat adapted for endurance exercise or not but on its own it's just showing how I fuelled my exercise that day.
That endurance athletes get better adapted isn't really a debate item is it?
Yes yes, I wasn't disputing that, I quoted because GottaBurn was asking about measuring body fat burn, not just fat in general. Sorry for any confusion!0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.
If you claim you burn body fat faster but you don't lose body fat faster, it means that at the same time you're packing on more bodyfat.
X (bodyfat lost) = (Y)bodyfat burned - (Z)bodyfat gained
If X is equal in two people you get
Y - Z = (Y+extra) - Z(+extra)
So is that what you're saying? Because that is what you've said means.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline 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?
Breath analysis says more acetone = more fat burning vs. carbs.
Doesn't equal faster weight loss though, just the fuel your body is using, and even that is changeable with diet. If you are eating a keto/low carb diet then your body has to switch to mostly fat, right?
Edit: an article on why athletes may want to know this:
joefrielsblog.com/2010/10/fat-burners-and-sugar-burners.html
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll 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?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
But that doesn't differentiate between dietary fat and body fat, which is the claim being made. That more stored body fat is being burned by someone who is fat adapted. It smacks of the claims made by those who keto that they lose weight faster consuming the same number of calories as someone who eats higher/high carb. I will note that's not what was claimed here but that's the theory I feel is being pushed.
Correct - gas analysis can't differentiate between either dietary fat / body fat or dietary carbs / glycogen.
That wasn't my point, just answering GottaBurnEmAll's question (which is why I quoted the question and added her profile name tag).
If I went back for another VO2 max test then I would be able to tell whether I am better fat adapted for endurance exercise or not but on its own it's just showing how I fuelled my exercise that day.
That endurance athletes get better adapted isn't really a debate item is it?
Yes yes, I wasn't disputing that, I quoted because GottaBurn was asking about measuring body fat burn, not just fat in general. Sorry for any confusion!
I'm also not disputing that.
I really think this is where you and GottaBurn are confused: Go back and read my posts again. You both keep referring to something that isn't there.... I've not said fat adapted people only burn body fat faster, and not dietary fat. We just burn fat faster. From all sources.
By not ingesting as many carbs, we are using much less glucose for fuel and much more fat. Under the same calorie consumption, we get more energy from fat (because that is what we are eating) and less from carbs (because we are not eating many carbs). There are different processes involved, though the calories still work out in the end.
Despite that I keep making this point, which I don't think you are actually disputing, you continue to mis-read my comments and arguing with something that I'm not saying.0 -
This thread is about carb timing, right? Not keto dieting or being fat adapted? Ok, just checking.13
-
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?
As explained, I burn fat faster - both body fat and dietary fat. I don't use as much glucose from carbs for energy and don't add much (if any) fat from glucose. The energy in and energy out is from different sources and flows in different ways. What I'm not saying is that I will lose fat faster. Overall, calories are still important, but the different macros are used in different ways. Since I'm fat adapted, I'm burning fat faster than someone not fat adapted. That doesn't automatically mean I burn BODY FAT vs. DIETARY FAT or that I LOSE FAT any faster.
If you claim you burn body fat faster but you don't lose body fat faster, it means that at the same time you're packing on more bodyfat.
X (bodyfat lost) = (Y)bodyfat burned - (Z)bodyfat gained
If X is equal in two people you get
Y - Z = (Y+extra) - Z(+extra)
So is that what you're saying? Because that is what you've said means.
No, I'm saying I burn fat faster. All fat. I also eat a lot more fat than the comparison person eating a lot more carbs rather than fat. I'm not losing body fat faster. You are ignoring dietary fat.0 -
carbs spread out during the day with them being the lowest at dinner is what i try to attempt . it has worked for me so far .. i would ask him the reasoning because any trainer i ever had suggested to spread it out0
-
My trainer told me to eat more carbs at breakfast and lunch. I have never heard of "no carbs till dinner" seems weird and unhealthy.0
-
@GottaBurnEmAllGottaBurnEmAll 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?
You can get hooked up to a gas analyser while exercising. By measuring your gas exchange they can tell what fuel substrates you are using. Nearly always you are using a blend of fat and carbs (glycogen).
At low intensity mainly fat, at high intensity mostly glycogen/carbs.
My personal result when tested was 50/50 fat/carbs usage at 130bpm (my HR range is 48 - 176bpm) so that's my kind of cycle all day long at a touring pace.
Just a couple of points to chip in on the ping pong arguments above:
You don't use glycogen first, your exercise intensity is the primary cause of fuel substrate proportions used. You don't suddenly go from using (virtually) all fat doing nothing and in an instant switch to all glycogen fuelled when you start cardio.
(Just in case people wonder - none of the above has a bearing on weight loss / fat loss.)
You can still function when you have bonked/hit the wall - just extremely badly. Absolutely crushing fatigue and mental confusion (such as forgetting to put your feet down when you stop your bicycle at a junction!) but you don't necessarily come to a complete halt. Still managed to get home.
Since the initial pathway is usually glycolysis, technically you DO use glycogen first ;-) (OK, it's actually glucose).
That is the basis of the old "oxygen debt" theory.
Just thought I'd throw in some more pedantry, since god knows there isn't nearly enough in this thread.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 442 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions