pros only....no cons....lowering carbs

tennisdude2004

Don't lower carbs, you won't have much energy and will loose a lot of muscle / not sustainable in the long run.

In fact you want to reduce fast digesting carbs and replace them with slow digesting carbs , that keep you full for longer due to slower rate of absorption.

Mostly carbs with high fiber content.

I eat 220 grams of carbs a day still loosing 1.5 lb a week.

At activity levels below approx 75% your body will happily fuel itself with dietary and stored body fat. Regards muscle cannibalisation - you are incorrect to assume that eating fewer carbs will cause this.

There are many things that will cannibalise of lean mass - stress, excessive cardio, lack of protein in your diet (pretty much anything that requires the body to produce excessive amounts of cortisol).

A diet low in carbs and moderate in protein is not one of the things!

It's maybe not bro science, just lack of knowledge in low carb diets that has caused you to post an incorrect comment - not to worry we are all in learning mode.

In regards to energy, a diet low in carbs in facts gives you plenty of energy, without having to fuel the body with fast burning carbs. I can quite happily do a 9 mile hike on a Sunday morning or a 32 mile bike ride at about a 10 - 12 mph pace without any food in the morning (well maybe a coffee or two).

If I am doing any more energetic activities like competitive tennis, faster rides or lifting at the gym I will of course eat additional carbs accordingly.

yarwell

Yea that I know but is the body fully capable of producing the 130g the brain needs?

I know you're just trolling really, but the answer is "yes".

Hepatic glucose output is about 10 grams per hour or 240 grams per day.

In the absence of carb intake the brain uses ketones instead of glucose for a large part of its fuel, reducing the glucose need to about 30 grams (from memory).

People who eat literally nothing for extended periods do not collapse and die in a hypoglycemic coma from lack of ingested carbohydrate.

Low carb eaters do not have inadequate blood sugar or brain function.

Rocket_Man44

Don't lower carbs, you won't have much energy and will loose a lot of muscle / not sustainable in the long run.

In fact you want to reduce fast digesting carbs and replace them with slow digesting carbs , that keep you full for longer due to slower rate of absorption.

Mostly carbs with high fiber content.

I eat 220 grams of carbs a day still loosing 1.5 lb a week.

At activity levels below approx 75% your body will happily fuel itself with dietary and stored body fat. Regards muscle cannibalisation - you are incorrect to assume that eating fewer carbs will cause this.

There are many things that will cannibalise of lean mass - stress, excessive cardio, lack of protein in your diet (pretty much anything that requires the body to produce excessive amounts of cortisol).

A diet low in carbs and moderate in protein is not one of the things!

It's maybe not bro science, just lack of knowledge in low carb diets that has caused you to post an incorrect comment - not to worry we are all in learning mode.

In regards to energy, a diet low in carbs in facts gives you plenty of energy, without having to fuel the body with fast burning carbs. I can quite happily do a 9 mile hike on a Sunday morning or a 32 mile bike ride at about a 10 - 12 mph pace without any food in the morning (well maybe a coffee or two).

If I am doing any more energetic activities like competitive tennis, faster rides or lifting at the gym I will of course eat additional carbs accordingly.

Agree to the incorrect statement I made.

Was actually referring to myself..as I do high intensity weight training 4 days a week and I box 2 days a week. Hence, my high number of carbs.

icrushit

Everything you see in my ticker is all from low carb, and really find it an effective tool. I've tried all sorts of ways to lose weight, and been successful in the past, but cutting carbs shall be something that long remains in my toolbox should I need to shave some pounds again in the future.

My personal experience is that it makes sticking to a calorie deficit quite easy, as you're eating more satiating foods (fat & protein-rich foods), and less filler foods, and tend to remain quite full and in control. I also found I tended to eat a lot more vegetables than I did before too, sheerly through finding foods to to eat that are not meat and cheese all day, lol.

Anyway, I'm a big fan, at least as a weight loss tool. Longer term I'll see, and most likely will revert to a diet that has moderate amounts of all the macronutrients, and neither high or low amounts of any. I will add though, I don't do very low or ultra-low carb as some do, as for me that would mean cutting out things I like and are quite good nutrient-wise, like probiotic yoghurt, some dark chocolate, as well as having to keep a closer eye on the exact quantities of non-starchy veg I eat. Around 50g of net carbs seems to be the magic number for me at the moment, allowing me to eat as I want without being needing to cut out things I would prefer to include for their micro-nutrients.

There are a few victims of the low-carb approach, and these tend to be otherwise good things like potatoes, healthy grains and fruit, but I don't tend to worry about that, as I will simply re-introduce those when I'm done with dropping weight. The other stuff like wheat and added sugar, I won't be shedding too many tears over their exit from my diet.

In any event, I would suggest starting gradually. See what carbs are in your diet, and tackle the most superfluous ones first, things like bread, alcohol, and added sugar, dialling them back, with a view to eliminating them. Next dial back the grains, starchy veg, and non-berry fruits. See where you're at then, and if you wish to go further. There's nothing wrong with stopping here, and maintaining a moderate carb intake, as with more fat and protein in your diet to replace the lost carbs, you may find this is a nice level to remain at for your weight loss.

If you do want to go further, I would say to eliminate the grains, non-berry fruits, and most potato from your diet, which should bring you down to around 50g net carbs a day. I personally stopped here, so if you wished to go further, I'm sure those on lower carb intakes shall be able to offer some useful advice.

Oh, and just remember, by cutting carbs down, your body will also be forced to lower its glycogen stores (the bodies internal store of carbs). As this happens, you will experience a lot of water weight loss, so don't be alarmed, as for every gram of glycogen the body holds onto, it also holds onto 4/ 5 grams of water too, so as that glycogen reduces, so does the water your body holds onto for that glycogen. Also, as you increase your carb intake at a later stage, your body will begin to replenish its glycogen stores, and thus hold onto more water too, so you can expect to see some of those initial water weight pounds return, and in line with what your new carb intake is.

Hope some of this helps, and good luck with it all

tennisdude2004

Yea that I know but is the body fully capable of producing the 130g the brain needs?

I know you're just trolling really, but the answer is "yes".

Hepatic glucose output is about 10 grams per hour or 240 grams per day.

In the absence of carb intake the brain uses ketones instead of glucose for a large part of its fuel, reducing the glucose need to about 30 grams (from memory).

People who eat literally nothing for extended periods do not collapse and die in a hypoglycemic coma from lack of ingested carbohydrate.

Low carb eaters do not have inadequate blood sugar or brain function.

Lets hope its just trolling, if not it shows a complete lack of knowledge on issues relating to low carb diets (and that surely cannot be the case).