Carb cycling

Options
2»

Replies

  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    Options
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    Carb cycling is for pro athletes / bodybuilders / physique competitor short term training regimen that has been adopted as a point of difference marketing tool by people who make money out of packaging up miracles for weight loss

    Also 18% body fat on a woman is already in the "underfat" territory

    Maybe you need to look at body recomposition through progressive resistance if you are still unhappy with your physicality

    Good luck

    Women dont have issues until under 14%. 18% is considered to be athletic.

    This is the second time I've seen you posting similar to this @psuLemon

    Having issues and being under what the WHO consider ideal / healthy is different. 18% is considered underfat.

    Why are you suddenly promoting women being close to essential BF, it doesn't ring true with most of your, far more sensible, posts so it makes me feel like I'm missing something ...some crucial piece of research that negates the 21-33% staggered by age healthy BF levels I've seen across the board
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    Carb cycling is for pro athletes / bodybuilders / physique competitor short term training regimen that has been adopted as a point of difference marketing tool by people who make money out of packaging up miracles for weight loss

    Also 18% body fat on a woman is already in the "underfat" territory

    Maybe you need to look at body recomposition through progressive resistance if you are still unhappy with your physicality

    Good luck

    Women dont have issues until under 14%. 18% is considered to be athletic.

    This is the second time I've seen you posting similar to this @psuLemon

    Having issues and being under what the WHO consider ideal / healthy is different. 18% is considered underfat.

    Why are you suddenly promoting women being close to essential BF, it doesn't ring true with most of your, far more sensible, posts so it makes me feel like I'm missing something ...some crucial piece of research that negates the 21-33% staggered by age healthy BF levels I've seen across the board

    anecdotally, i started to lose my period around 17%... so... just sayin
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    Options
    OP, I agree that you're majoring in the minors here. Switch your focus to actually tracking calories and macronutrients successfully FIRST.

    Low carb/carb cycling is not going to be more helpful for you than just knowing the proper amount of calories you're eating.
  • Kenny2G
    Kenny2G Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    I agree with rainbow. I only carb cycle at the very end of a cut. Or else you will likely burnout rather quickly. It's much more useful for fine-tuning.
  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,096 Member
    Options
    Okay...am I missing something. The below according to MFP's BMI calculator for a 64 y/o woman at 5' 6"

    Under less than 18.5
    Healthy 18.5-25.0
    Over 25.0-30.0
    Obese 30.0 and above



    If I am making the correct assumptions WHO's suggested BMIs are much different...drastically.

    Surely I am looking at this wrong.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    Okay...am I missing something. The below according to MFP's BMI calculator for a 64 y/o woman at 5' 6"

    Under less than 18.5
    Healthy 18.5-25.0
    Over 25.0-30.0
    Obese 30.0 and above



    If I am making the correct assumptions WHO's suggested BMIs are much different...drastically.

    Surely I am looking at this wrong.

    Those are BMI = height / weight

    We are talking about body fat percentage

    It's different
  • crzycatlady1
    crzycatlady1 Posts: 1,930 Member
    Options
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    Okay...am I missing something. The below according to MFP's BMI calculator for a 64 y/o woman at 5' 6"

    Under less than 18.5
    Healthy 18.5-25.0
    Over 25.0-30.0
    Obese 30.0 and above



    If I am making the correct assumptions WHO's suggested BMIs are much different...drastically.

    Surely I am looking at this wrong.

    BMI= Body Mass Index

    BF%= Body Fat percentage
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,401 MFP Moderator
    Options
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    Carb cycling is for pro athletes / bodybuilders / physique competitor short term training regimen that has been adopted as a point of difference marketing tool by people who make money out of packaging up miracles for weight loss

    Also 18% body fat on a woman is already in the "underfat" territory

    Maybe you need to look at body recomposition through progressive resistance if you are still unhappy with your physicality

    Good luck

    Women dont have issues until under 14%. 18% is considered to be athletic.

    This is the second time I've seen you posting similar to this @psuLemon

    Having issues and being under what the WHO consider ideal / healthy is different. 18% is considered underfat.

    Why are you suddenly promoting women being close to essential BF, it doesn't ring true with most of your, far more sensible, posts so it makes me feel like I'm missing something ...some crucial piece of research that negates the 21-33% staggered by age healthy BF levels I've seen across the board

    I guess the standards and classifications from the WHO and other groups are not aligned. This is from the Amercian College of Sports Medicine.

    FQJDBBMGQB4XEJH.jpg

    I find it fascinating consider essential fats are sub 14% for women.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    Carb cycling is for pro athletes / bodybuilders / physique competitor short term training regimen that has been adopted as a point of difference marketing tool by people who make money out of packaging up miracles for weight loss

    Also 18% body fat on a woman is already in the "underfat" territory

    Maybe you need to look at body recomposition through progressive resistance if you are still unhappy with your physicality

    Good luck

    Women dont have issues until under 14%. 18% is considered to be athletic.

    This is the second time I've seen you posting similar to this @psuLemon

    Having issues and being under what the WHO consider ideal / healthy is different. 18% is considered underfat.

    Why are you suddenly promoting women being close to essential BF, it doesn't ring true with most of your, far more sensible, posts so it makes me feel like I'm missing something ...some crucial piece of research that negates the 21-33% staggered by age healthy BF levels I've seen across the board

    I guess the standards and classifications from the WHO and other groups are not aligned. This is from the Amercian College of Sports Medicine.

    FQJDBBMGQB4XEJH.jpg

    I find it fascinating consider essential fats are sub 14% for women.

    That's scary

    Considering symptoms that can occur in women sub 18-20

    And that essential BF % is 11-13 which means risk of fatality

    I think I will stick with WHO and other sources I find more credible until I see some kind of science behind pretty tables

    And I will continue to comment if I see people posting that anything sub 21% is any kind of ideal for women.

    Because I really believe, hand on heart, that's dangerous, and potentially promoting ED and body dysmorphia for the vast majority of women e.g. Non pro-athletes / bodybuilders (inc physique competitors)
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    Can you provide any source studies to back up those charts?

    Not picking

    Just very concerned
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,401 MFP Moderator
    Options
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    Carb cycling is for pro athletes / bodybuilders / physique competitor short term training regimen that has been adopted as a point of difference marketing tool by people who make money out of packaging up miracles for weight loss

    Also 18% body fat on a woman is already in the "underfat" territory

    Maybe you need to look at body recomposition through progressive resistance if you are still unhappy with your physicality

    Good luck

    Women dont have issues until under 14%. 18% is considered to be athletic.

    This is the second time I've seen you posting similar to this @psuLemon

    Having issues and being under what the WHO consider ideal / healthy is different. 18% is considered underfat.

    Why are you suddenly promoting women being close to essential BF, it doesn't ring true with most of your, far more sensible, posts so it makes me feel like I'm missing something ...some crucial piece of research that negates the 21-33% staggered by age healthy BF levels I've seen across the board

    I guess the standards and classifications from the WHO and other groups are not aligned. This is from the Amercian College of Sports Medicine.

    FQJDBBMGQB4XEJH.jpg

    I find it fascinating consider essential fats are sub 14% for women.

    That's scary

    Considering symptoms that can occur in women sub 18-20

    And that essential BF % is 11-13 which means risk of fatality

    I think I will stick with WHO and other sources I find more credible until I see some kind of science behind pretty tables

    And I will continue to comment if I see people posting that anything sub 21% is any kind of ideal for women.

    Because I really believe, hand on heart, that's dangerous, and potentially promoting ED and body dysmorphia for the vast majority of women e.g. Non pro-athletes / bodybuilders (inc physique competitors)

    Symptoms can occur at different levels and that should be monitored. But i have known many of women who are sub 18% without issue. And based on your link, it would suggest people like Hornsby are underfat and unhealthy.


    I have seen some stuff from acsm but they are pdf's and i am on my phone so i will see if i can post the url (tried last night but couldnt get the link).
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Sued0nim wrote: »
    Carb cycling is for pro athletes / bodybuilders / physique competitor short term training regimen that has been adopted as a point of difference marketing tool by people who make money out of packaging up miracles for weight loss

    Also 18% body fat on a woman is already in the "underfat" territory

    Maybe you need to look at body recomposition through progressive resistance if you are still unhappy with your physicality

    Good luck

    Women dont have issues until under 14%. 18% is considered to be athletic.

    This is the second time I've seen you posting similar to this @psuLemon

    Having issues and being under what the WHO consider ideal / healthy is different. 18% is considered underfat.

    Why are you suddenly promoting women being close to essential BF, it doesn't ring true with most of your, far more sensible, posts so it makes me feel like I'm missing something ...some crucial piece of research that negates the 21-33% staggered by age healthy BF levels I've seen across the board

    I guess the standards and classifications from the WHO and other groups are not aligned. This is from the Amercian College of Sports Medicine.

    FQJDBBMGQB4XEJH.jpg

    I find it fascinating consider essential fats are sub 14% for women.

    That's scary

    Considering symptoms that can occur in women sub 18-20

    And that essential BF % is 11-13 which means risk of fatality

    I think I will stick with WHO and other sources I find more credible until I see some kind of science behind pretty tables

    And I will continue to comment if I see people posting that anything sub 21% is any kind of ideal for women.

    Because I really believe, hand on heart, that's dangerous, and potentially promoting ED and body dysmorphia for the vast majority of women e.g. Non pro-athletes / bodybuilders (inc physique competitors)

    Symptoms can occur at different levels and that should be monitored. But i have known many of women who are sub 18% without issue. And based on your link, it would suggest people like Hornsby are underfat and unhealthy.


    I have seen some stuff from acsm but they are pdf's and i am on my phone so i will see if i can post the url (tried last night but couldnt get the link).

    I'd appreciate that

    Males and females are very different in terms of essential fats and hormonal response ..I've seen people at low body fat too but I wouldn't make it a general recommendation for the general population

    And yes @hornsby is v. low BF but I'm pretty sure his hormones won't go rampaging and his reproductive organs shut down. And TBH dude ain't no genpop