Personal trainer says no carbs til dinner
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........
Yes, there is another issue: It is a societal issue where "burn fat" is often misunderstood to mean "burn only body fat." This is seen in advertisements often where you see "Fat Burner" or "Burn Fat" with the expectation that target consumers will make the same misunderstanding. They often do. Just because a lot of people misunderstand "Burn Fat" to mean "Burn Body Fat" doesn't mean "Burn Body Fat" was the proper understanding. The difference between those advertisements and me is that the companies making such ads profit from the common misunderstanding.
I think the bigger issue is that you're using "burn" to mean something other than "lose" when you say that you burn both dietary and body-fat faster being fat adapted.
That is the same issue, with the exception of determining what meaning of "burn" is correct.
Since I can see the issue is related to understanding of the word "burn" and that many here seem to think only body fat can be "burned," here is some additional clarification that should help everyone understand: Everywhere that I've written "burn" (except where quoted from others) can be replaced with "use" AND "fat" does not mean "body fat" nor "only body fat" except when, and only when specified as "body fat." In cases specified as both "body fat" and "dietary fat" (or any variations of that phrase where the words "body" and "dietary" are both included as adjectives of "fat," those adjectives must both remain intact in order to preserve meaning.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: The fact that you said that you burn all fat, including body fat (which would suggest that eating low to no carbs means you can decrease fat mass quicker) is where everyone had an issue. What you didn't do, at least in my opinion, is also mention that a diet higher in fat consumption, leads to greater storage of dietary fat.
There is no doubt that if you eat greater amounts of fat and less carbs, that fat oxidation increases and carbohydrate oxidation decrease. The opposite is true as well. More carbs = greater CHO oxidation, and less fat oxidation. What is really means... is nothing. It literally does not matter which energy source you chose. It's person choice based on goals. You increase fat oxidation doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. It just means that a greater amount of energy is coming from stored fats.
And theoretically, there is an unlimited ability to use fat for energy, but it also means there is an unlimited potential to store it. And you can make an argument that that means fat can be used as the primary fuel and is beneficial to elite athletes, but I would make the argument that if you look at almost every single elite athlete, it's just not as beneficial as carbs. The few exceptions or extreme still can't justify the benefit.
In the end, net energy balance will dictate fat mass loss and/or gain.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
The FASTER study looked into it for elite endurance athletes. Those who elite athletes who were fat adapted burned an astonishing amount of fat.
http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf
It sort of makes sense. We carry around tens of thousands of calories of fat to use and only a couple thousand calories of glycogen. Fat adapted individuals will tap into those fat stores faster and easier than those who eat high or moderate carbs. Those who use carb timing or back loading probably won't be fat adapted, I would imagine. And those of us who are fat adapted and not exercising will not reap the same benefits as these elite athetes either.
Not just elite, but ultra endurance. We're talking people who do up to 100 mile races (if you can call that a race) here. Outside of those very specific circumstances, i.e. if higher intensity is required, well...
http://www.mysportscience.com/single-post/2016/12/01/Ketogenic-diets-for-athletes
I did not read all of that blog. I was just backing up someone's point that if one is fat adapted (been keto for over a month or so) then they will burn fat at a higher rate than other people, especially during exercise (in elite endurance athletes). I never said it was best for performance in all athletics, although I can't think a single other study that looks at fat adapted athletes in other sports. I doubt there are any. Even the ones mentioned in that blog you linked were just for 4-7 weeks, and some were just LCHF and others would be during adaptation stage, and so not really relevant.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?
The FASTER study looked into it for elite endurance athletes. Those who elite athletes who were fat adapted burned an astonishing amount of fat.
http://www.vespapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Volek-Metabolism-FASTER-2015-Final.pdf
It sort of makes sense. We carry around tens of thousands of calories of fat to use and only a couple thousand calories of glycogen. Fat adapted individuals will tap into those fat stores faster and easier than those who eat high or moderate carbs. Those who use carb timing or back loading probably won't be fat adapted, I would imagine. And those of us who are fat adapted and not exercising will not reap the same benefits as these elite athetes either.
Whats also being lost is that those who eat more fat store more fat. Body fat % or fat mass will not be accelerated when compared to two isocaloric diets where protein is constant.
True. Eat more fat, burn more dietary fat and less body fat. Eat too much fat, burn only dietary fat and store some body fat.
Although I lose fat at a faster rate than expected when I eat ketogenic. Slightly accelerated in my case but it could be due to health issues being addressed (IR and autoimmunity) as well as reduced appetite. The best advantages to LCHF diets I've seen are transient 100kcal advantage or up to a couple hundred kcal.
But I'm off topic. OP is not interested in keto, just wondering about delaying carb intake over a 24 hour window. Most low carb discussions will be relevant here.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........
Yes, there is another issue: It is a societal issue where "burn fat" is often misunderstood to mean "burn only body fat." This is seen in advertisements often where you see "Fat Burner" or "Burn Fat" with the expectation that target consumers will make the same misunderstanding. They often do. Just because a lot of people misunderstand "Burn Fat" to mean "Burn Body Fat" doesn't mean "Burn Body Fat" was the proper understanding. The difference between those advertisements and me is that the companies making such ads profit from the common misunderstanding.
I think the bigger issue is that you're using "burn" to mean something other than "lose" when you say that you burn both dietary and body-fat faster being fat adapted.
That is the same issue, with the exception of determining what meaning of "burn" is correct.
Since I can see the issue is related to understanding of the word "burn" and that many here seem to think only body fat can be "burned," here is some additional clarification that should help everyone understand: Everywhere that I've written "burn" (except where quoted from others) can be replaced with "use" AND "fat" does not mean "body fat" nor "only body fat" except when, and only when specified as "body fat." In cases specified as both "body fat" and "dietary fat" (or any variations of that phrase where the words "body" and "dietary" are both included as adjectives of "fat," those adjectives must both remain intact in order to preserve meaning.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: The fact that you said that you burn all fat, including body fat (which would suggest that eating low to no carbs means you can decrease fat mass quicker) is where everyone had an issue. What you didn't do, at least in my opinion, is also mention that a diet higher in fat consumption, leads to greater storage of dietary fat.
There is no doubt that if you eat greater amounts of fat and less carbs, that fat oxidation increases and carbohydrate oxidation decrease. The opposite is true as well. More carbs = greater CHO oxidation, and less fat oxidation. What is really means... is nothing. It literally does not matter which energy source you chose. It's person choice based on goals. You increase fat oxidation doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. It just means that a greater amount of energy is coming from stored fats.
And theoretically, there is an unlimited ability to use fat for energy, but it also means there is an unlimited potential to store it. And you can make an argument that that means fat can be used as the primary fuel and is beneficial to elite athletes, but I would make the argument that if you look at almost every single elite athlete, it's just not as beneficial as carbs. The few exceptions or extreme still can't justify the benefit.
In the end, net energy balance will dictate fat mass loss and/or gain.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?
I think the bigger question is, why do you think people need to understand? You seem to be belaboring a point that is not relevant to the OP, or really, to anyone. So why is it so crucial to you that people get your point? It has derailed this thread for pages upon pages, probably scared off the OP, and frustrated not only you but everyone trying to argue with you as well as those reading along. This isn't the first time this has happened on these boards so I'm genuinely curious, when these conversations devolve into the pedantic semantic arguments that so often seem to happen, what is your end goal with this?5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........
Yes, there is another issue: It is a societal issue where "burn fat" is often misunderstood to mean "burn only body fat." This is seen in advertisements often where you see "Fat Burner" or "Burn Fat" with the expectation that target consumers will make the same misunderstanding. They often do. Just because a lot of people misunderstand "Burn Fat" to mean "Burn Body Fat" doesn't mean "Burn Body Fat" was the proper understanding. The difference between those advertisements and me is that the companies making such ads profit from the common misunderstanding.
I think the bigger issue is that you're using "burn" to mean something other than "lose" when you say that you burn both dietary and body-fat faster being fat adapted.
That is the same issue, with the exception of determining what meaning of "burn" is correct.
Since I can see the issue is related to understanding of the word "burn" and that many here seem to think only body fat can be "burned," here is some additional clarification that should help everyone understand: Everywhere that I've written "burn" (except where quoted from others) can be replaced with "use" AND "fat" does not mean "body fat" nor "only body fat" except when, and only when specified as "body fat." In cases specified as both "body fat" and "dietary fat" (or any variations of that phrase where the words "body" and "dietary" are both included as adjectives of "fat," those adjectives must both remain intact in order to preserve meaning.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: The fact that you said that you burn all fat, including body fat (which would suggest that eating low to no carbs means you can decrease fat mass quicker) is where everyone had an issue. What you didn't do, at least in my opinion, is also mention that a diet higher in fat consumption, leads to greater storage of dietary fat.
There is no doubt that if you eat greater amounts of fat and less carbs, that fat oxidation increases and carbohydrate oxidation decrease. The opposite is true as well. More carbs = greater CHO oxidation, and less fat oxidation. What is really means... is nothing. It literally does not matter which energy source you chose. It's person choice based on goals. You increase fat oxidation doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. It just means that a greater amount of energy is coming from stored fats.
And theoretically, there is an unlimited ability to use fat for energy, but it also means there is an unlimited potential to store it. And you can make an argument that that means fat can be used as the primary fuel and is beneficial to elite athletes, but I would make the argument that if you look at almost every single elite athlete, it's just not as beneficial as carbs. The few exceptions or extreme still can't justify the benefit.
In the end, net energy balance will dictate fat mass loss and/or gain.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?
You explained it by repeating the same stuff over and over. To add to what I already wrote, it's simple:
Your preferred energy source is fat. Fat loss does not change.
5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........
Yes, there is another issue: It is a societal issue where "burn fat" is often misunderstood to mean "burn only body fat." This is seen in advertisements often where you see "Fat Burner" or "Burn Fat" with the expectation that target consumers will make the same misunderstanding. They often do. Just because a lot of people misunderstand "Burn Fat" to mean "Burn Body Fat" doesn't mean "Burn Body Fat" was the proper understanding. The difference between those advertisements and me is that the companies making such ads profit from the common misunderstanding.
I think the bigger issue is that you're using "burn" to mean something other than "lose" when you say that you burn both dietary and body-fat faster being fat adapted.
That is the same issue, with the exception of determining what meaning of "burn" is correct.
Since I can see the issue is related to understanding of the word "burn" and that many here seem to think only body fat can be "burned," here is some additional clarification that should help everyone understand: Everywhere that I've written "burn" (except where quoted from others) can be replaced with "use" AND "fat" does not mean "body fat" nor "only body fat" except when, and only when specified as "body fat." In cases specified as both "body fat" and "dietary fat" (or any variations of that phrase where the words "body" and "dietary" are both included as adjectives of "fat," those adjectives must both remain intact in order to preserve meaning.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: The fact that you said that you burn all fat, including body fat (which would suggest that eating low to no carbs means you can decrease fat mass quicker) is where everyone had an issue. What you didn't do, at least in my opinion, is also mention that a diet higher in fat consumption, leads to greater storage of dietary fat.
There is no doubt that if you eat greater amounts of fat and less carbs, that fat oxidation increases and carbohydrate oxidation decrease. The opposite is true as well. More carbs = greater CHO oxidation, and less fat oxidation. What is really means... is nothing. It literally does not matter which energy source you chose. It's person choice based on goals. You increase fat oxidation doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. It just means that a greater amount of energy is coming from stored fats.
And theoretically, there is an unlimited ability to use fat for energy, but it also means there is an unlimited potential to store it. And you can make an argument that that means fat can be used as the primary fuel and is beneficial to elite athletes, but I would make the argument that if you look at almost every single elite athlete, it's just not as beneficial as carbs. The few exceptions or extreme still can't justify the benefit.
In the end, net energy balance will dictate fat mass loss and/or gain.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?
I think the bigger question is, why do you think people need to understand? You seem to be belaboring a point that is not relevant to the OP, or really, to anyone. So why is it so crucial to you that people get your point? It has derailed this thread for pages upon pages, probably scared off the OP, and frustrated not only you but everyone trying to argue with you as well as those reading along. This isn't the first time this has happened on these boards so I'm genuinely curious, when these conversations devolve into the pedantic semantic arguments that so often seem to happen, what is your end goal with this?
My point is relevant to the OP, as I've thoroughly explained.
It seems like a lot of people want to argue with me despite that they actually agree (and don't realize it). Others inability to understand is what has made that point repeated in different ways repeatedly. If the argument is: "Everyone can't understand because you didn't say it right." Then my question is: How should I have said it so that everyone does understand? That's useful because the lack of understanding is what has caused several users to argue, despite that they seem to agree with the core point.0 -
jeffkirkwold wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »jeffkirkwold wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »jeffkirkwold wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »jeffkirkwold wrote: »I find it amusing that those who criticize the trainer provide NO credible science as to why the trainer is wrong. I also find it humorous that the original poster is asking this group of clowns for nutritional advice. Read the research yourself. Ask your trainer why no carbs til dinner and demand the science.
Dietary carbs are not necessary for the body or brain to function. We can get all the glucose our body/brain needs through moderate protein consumption as some of it is converted to glucose. I reference the works of Tim Noakes, Jeff Volek and Steve Phinney. These research doctors are at the cutting edge of research in the subject area.
I will assume the original poster is a good person and is already researching this without listening to the butt clowns that criticize low carb approaches to training. There is no one perfect diet for everyone so listening to your body, and thoughtful experimentation should be considered the best way to validate your research and opinions.
Hey butt clowns, if you can't cite your science or sources for your advice, get bent and shut up.
Hey buttless serious person (I'm guessing this is the opposite of a "butt clown"?), nobody is saying that one *must* consume high carbohydrates to be successful, we're just questioning whether or not one *must* avoid carbohydrates until dinner in order to meet one's goals.
I'm going to guess that even you, a low carber, consume at least a couple of grams of carbohydrates before dinner. The advice the OP received wasn't backed by any science, it's not practical, and it isn't necessary.
What I do is irrelevant. It has to be that way for all of us to remain genuine to the science and not to our experiences alone, per se. The topic of low carb or no carb before dinner is splitting hairs. The essence of the discussion revolves around the role of carbs in weight loss and weight lifting. Remember the original poster? THAT is the context. And I think it is obvious that IF the trainer is recommending no carbs before dinner, we are looking at some form of low carb diet overall. Now, even if I am wrong to reframe the question, the main point about being well informed with good science is still relevant. Regardless the topic.
The original poster, and all of us for that fact, would be better served by asking something like "Where can I find research on 'whatever' so I can evaluate the research to make an informed decision? I really don't care about what is working for you. I am me. I might be different, metabolically speaking. While I don't mind hearing about what is or is not working for you, it is no replacement for getting beyond the hype and digging into the research.
And you're wrong...my butt is ample.
If you think that most of us here don't care about science, or don't reference studies when debating, you should really spend more time on these forums before posting.
Count the number of post of mindless and thoughtless replys and then the ones with research. You will find most are unhelpful, at best. If you are one of the people that post thoughtful comments, GREAT! Just cite your sources. Don't just give a 'man' a fish, teach 'him' how to fish.
And while you are condescending, I don't mind...I have thick skin. We all owe each other some room to be less than perfect in our methods of communication. Look for the gold among the rocks and focus on that.
Again, as pointed out above, this is the general diet and weight loss help section - NOT debate. Many posters are not interested in doing extensive research, reading peer reviewed journal articles, getting a deeper understanding of physiology and biochemistry, they simply want a sounding board to see if what they are already thinking makes sense (which is exactly how I read the OP's question). Now often times, these discussions go off on tangents that are not really germane to the OP's question at all - which is what has happened here.
For you to come in and make sweeping accusations against the community at large shows a great lack of understanding of the culture of this forum. There are members here who have vast knowledge in these areas who are happy to post credible scientific studies, there are members who patiently explain the science to those looking for a more layman's understanding of what those studies said. There are also people who come in blasting broscience and promoting concepts that have little to no relevance for the average person just looking for weight loss and increasing general fitness and health. That is largely what you are seeing in this particular thread - without knowing more details about the conversation between OP and her trainer, the assumption is that his advice may have been off base for her particular needs and desires, and telling her bluntly "get a new trainer" or "don't listen to a trainer for dietary advice" doesn't really need extensive annotated references to be good advice...
I respectfully disagree. On nearly everything you said. You assume way too much about what users of this board want. The only thing sweeping about my comments are to those offering stupid one line retorts on how the trainer is an idiot.
Are you that person? If not, carry on. But don't assume people want more or less research to go with their opinions. Further, for those that don't want research...well, I would hope to convince you otherwise but we're not just talking about what color my dress should be at the ball.
As for your precious culture, perhaps that need some examination too. Perhaps we have allowed ourselves to be too polite so that we can be liked and feel supported by others. Just maybe, people like me can shake things up a little and we can eventually develop a culture where opinions are supported by facts and people also develop the ability to tolerate slight and sarcasm from time to time. Wouldn't that be a nice place to live?
Honestly: No. I don't see anything particularly nice about direct personal insults. That may be the type of forum you like -- I am sure there are many places out there where you can find the atmosphere you prefer.11 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Thing is, you can question the reading comprehension of one, maybe two people but a bunch of us are confused as to what the point being is (and the point of that point). I don't think we're all wilfully combative for the sake of arguing so that would indicate the issue being elsewhere..........
Yes, there is another issue: It is a societal issue where "burn fat" is often misunderstood to mean "burn only body fat." This is seen in advertisements often where you see "Fat Burner" or "Burn Fat" with the expectation that target consumers will make the same misunderstanding. They often do. Just because a lot of people misunderstand "Burn Fat" to mean "Burn Body Fat" doesn't mean "Burn Body Fat" was the proper understanding. The difference between those advertisements and me is that the companies making such ads profit from the common misunderstanding.
I think the bigger issue is that you're using "burn" to mean something other than "lose" when you say that you burn both dietary and body-fat faster being fat adapted.
That is the same issue, with the exception of determining what meaning of "burn" is correct.
Since I can see the issue is related to understanding of the word "burn" and that many here seem to think only body fat can be "burned," here is some additional clarification that should help everyone understand: Everywhere that I've written "burn" (except where quoted from others) can be replaced with "use" AND "fat" does not mean "body fat" nor "only body fat" except when, and only when specified as "body fat." In cases specified as both "body fat" and "dietary fat" (or any variations of that phrase where the words "body" and "dietary" are both included as adjectives of "fat," those adjectives must both remain intact in order to preserve meaning.
1: No one really questions that fat oxidation increases with increase in fat consumption. That is why no one mentioned it. 2: The fact that you said that you burn all fat, including body fat (which would suggest that eating low to no carbs means you can decrease fat mass quicker) is where everyone had an issue. What you didn't do, at least in my opinion, is also mention that a diet higher in fat consumption, leads to greater storage of dietary fat.
There is no doubt that if you eat greater amounts of fat and less carbs, that fat oxidation increases and carbohydrate oxidation decrease. The opposite is true as well. More carbs = greater CHO oxidation, and less fat oxidation. What is really means... is nothing. It literally does not matter which energy source you chose. It's person choice based on goals. You increase fat oxidation doesn't mean anything in the grand scheme of things. It just means that a greater amount of energy is coming from stored fats.
And theoretically, there is an unlimited ability to use fat for energy, but it also means there is an unlimited potential to store it. And you can make an argument that that means fat can be used as the primary fuel and is beneficial to elite athletes, but I would make the argument that if you look at almost every single elite athlete, it's just not as beneficial as carbs. The few exceptions or extreme still can't justify the benefit.
In the end, net energy balance will dictate fat mass loss and/or gain.
1: I did mention it, and I thought nobody would question that either. And yet here we are...
2: I clearly stated that using fat does not necessarily mean losing body fat.
You should probably go back to several of your post and look at how often you said all fats, including body fat. That would suggest that you burn body fat at higher rates, resulting in much greater fat loss (that is literally the inference). If you don't understand how that can come off, then it's a misunderstand on your part. Not everyone else in this thread.
I've tried to clarify that several times, yet no matter how many different ways I try to explain it, people continue to misunderstand. Do you actually understand what I'm saying? If yes, how would you phrase it so that other users understand?
I think the bigger question is, why do you think people need to understand? You seem to be belaboring a point that is not relevant to the OP, or really, to anyone. So why is it so crucial to you that people get your point? It has derailed this thread for pages upon pages, probably scared off the OP, and frustrated not only you but everyone trying to argue with you as well as those reading along. This isn't the first time this has happened on these boards so I'm genuinely curious, when these conversations devolve into the pedantic semantic arguments that so often seem to happen, what is your end goal with this?
My point is relevant to the OP, as I've thoroughly explained.
It seems like a lot of people want to argue with me despite that they actually agree (and don't realize it). Others inability to understand is what has made that point repeated in different ways repeatedly. If the argument is: "Everyone can't understand because you didn't say it right." Then my question is: How should I have said it so that everyone does understand? That's useful because the lack of understanding is what has caused several users to argue, despite that they seem to agree with the core point.
I think you are failing to see the whole picture. Calories and protein being equal, there is NO difference in fat loss regardless of when you consume your nutrients. And even if we didn't look at timing and looked at total consumption, it still would be meaningless. Whether you have a preferred source of fat or carbs, is doesn't matter in regards to fat loss. Only energy balance matters. There is no metabolic advantage to any of these diets.
In the context of the OP, it doesn't matter when she eats carbs. And I suspect her trainer is working off anecdotal evidence which has help those not tracking calories, to reduce calories.3 -
About 5 years ago I flipped my daily diet upside down and ate the majority of my calories and carbohydrates in the evening. Before that time I had lost 100lbs and had kept it off for 7 years but I was struggling a bit because I was still believing the myths of eating 6 small meals and eating less at night.
Both of those myths go against how I like to eat.
I've always been more hungry at night and also prefer a few large meals vs smaller and more frequent eating.
So even though it went against everything I believed to be true I made the switch.
This leap of faith was a tremendous blessing to me. Since then I never struggle and I've lost even more weight.
Thr truth is, as others have said, it doesn't matter how many meals you have or when you have them, so eat the way you prefer to eat and focus on your daily calories goal. This journey is so much easier when you don't have to fight against yourself.17 -
Russellb97 wrote: »About 5 years ago I flipped my daily diet upside down and ate the majority of my calories and carbohydrates in the evening. Before that time I had lost 100lbs and had kept it off for 7 years but I was struggling a bit because I was still believing the myths of eating 6 small meals and eating less at night.
Both of those myths go against how I like to eat.
I've always been more hungry at night and also prefer a few large meals vs smaller and more frequent eating.
So even though it went against everything I believed to be true I made the switch.
This leap of faith was a tremendous blessing to me. Since then I never struggle and I've lost even more weight.
Thr truth is, as others have said, it doesn't matter how many meals you have or when you have them, so eat the way you prefer to eat and focus on your daily calories goal. This journey is so much easier when you don't have to fight against yourself.
Exactly. One of the greatest factors in dietary success is whether or not you will be able to stick with it. Macros and timing is irrelevant with regards to weight loss except under specific circumstances, such as health conditions and elite athletes.
Wow, that you stuck to a way of eating that didn't fit your preferences for so long! So many people would have given up.
ETA: I shouldn't say macros are irrelevant, appropriate levels of proteins and fats are necessary for proper body functioning and there is satiety issues which are driven, in part by personal preference.4 -
The moderation team has finished reviewing and cleaning this thread. Please make sure to stay on topic and follow the community guidelines found: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
5
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