New to low carb, can somebody look at my meal plan?

mynameisuntz

Untz and Hunter, I've read both of the articles that you've provided, and I still haven't found an answer to my questions. In fact the article you provided Untz, seemed to point towards eating low-carb:

"But when you eat more carbs, you burn more carbs and burn less fat. And that’s why even if carbs aren’t directly converted to fat and stored as such, excess carbs can STILL MAKE YOU FAT. Basically, by inhibiting fat oxidation, excess carbs cause you to store all the fat you’re eating without burning any of it off. Did you get that? Let me repeat it again."

My question still remains... What does the body use for energy if it is not taking in carbs?

Read it more carefully:

1) Excess dietary fat is directly stored as fat
2) Excess dietary carbs increases carb oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat
3) Excess dietary protein increases protein oxidation, impairing fat oxidation; more of your daily fat intake is stored as fat

Got it? All three situations make you fat, just through different mechanisms. Fat is directly stored and carbs and protein cause you to store the fat you’re eating by decreasing fat oxidation.

Your question is too broad. If you do not eat carbs, then your body will use lipids and amino acids for energy. But if you choose to fixate on that fact alone, then you are CONVENIENTLY IGNORING the fact that you are GAINING more fat. I'll illustrate:

Your maintenance is 2,500 calories. Let's say you eat 2,000 calories of dietary fat. All that fat stored, then eventually burned. Meaning you burned all 2,000 calories of dietary fat + additional 500 from body fat. Understand?

Now let's say you eat 2,000 calories of carbs. All those carbs are burned immediately or stored as glycogen where they will be burned throughout the 24 hour period. So you burn those 2,000 carbs, then you have a leftover 500 calories needed to fulfill maintenance. Where does it come from? Body fat.

In the first scenario, you burn more fat but the majority of the fat you burn came from dietary fat you ate THAT DAY. In the second scenario, less overall fat is burned but there is a net EQUAL amount of BODY FAT burned.

Grokette

I can understand you wanting to be on a low carb diet but you are not having that I can see, surely that diary doesn't get to 1500 calories, I struggle to eat 1500 calories and I eat a lot more than that. I was seeing a dietitian and she said by not eating carbs at night by the time breakfast came around I was putting my body into starvation mode again because of the lack of food over night. When the body goes into starvation mode it store the food you eat as fat because it doesn't know when the next lot of food will come.

Starvation mode does not occur that fast, meaning overnight.

The key to a low carb plan is to keep fat intake high, protein moderate and carbs low.

I have been low carbing off and on for the past 8 years and had kept 100 pound weight loss maintained until i had a car accident in 2008 in which i gained back about 65 pounds in a very short time frame.

I dedicated myself 1000% in February 2011 and will never eat another way again as this is how i maintain control of ny medical issues.

I didn't say "starvation mode" starts overnight if I skip carbs on one night but it is an overall thing and it was my qualified dietitian who my doctor referred me to so I trust her knowledge on the matter of weight loss

Besides that I certainly wouldn't want to spend the rest of my life with hardly any carbs on a "diet" that means I cannot eat yummy things ever again. The best thing to do is learn to eat in a healthy way where so I can still have the treats sometimes.

The point I am making is your dietician is very wrong. I eat hardly any carbs and according to her philosophy I should be so deep into starvation mode that I wouldn't be able to lose weight in the least.

There is no physiological reason for us to eat carbs other than merely wanting them. We don't NEED them in the least.

That is the point I am making in your dieticians flawed and mainstream views. And most times when a doctor refers a patient over to a dietician for "nutritional advise" that patient ends up on many more drugs in the long run.

busywaterbending

This is one of the most wrong statements on this forum yet;
If you think insulin is THE ONLY means in which our body gains and stores fat, then you are seriously mistaken. This line of thinking would tell you that eating 20,000 calories of pure olive oil would not result in fat gain.

Having witnessed Bulgarian gymnasts literally drink olive oil all day for their energy when I was in Sofia, and knowing how healthy they are, I have to say that yeah, pure olive oil will not result in fat gain as long as you don't eat carbs!!! I personally know a member of the gold medal, first place rhythmic gymnastics Bulgarian group program from the 90s and she, along with two other Internationally ranked Bulgarian RSG team members swear that they subsisted on olive oil when they had to loose fat and not lose any muscle.
http://www.olympic.org/Assets/MediaPlayer/Photos/2008/08/24/82531289 10/82531289_10_147x110.jpg

mynameisuntz

Having witnessed Bulgarian gymnasts literally drink olive oil all day for their energy when I was in Sofia, and knowing how healthy they are, I have to say that yeah, pure olive oil will not result in fat gain as long as you don't eat carbs!!! I personally know a member of the gold medal, first place rhythmic gymnastics Bulgarian group program from the 90s and she, along with two other Internationally ranked Bulgarian RSG team members swear that they subsisted on olive oil when they had to loose weight.
http://www.olympic.org/Assets/MediaPlayer/Photos/2008/08/24/82531289 10/82531289_10_147x110.jpg

Mind=blown.

So you're telling me I will gain more fat by eating 10 calories over maintenance with a pure carb diet than eating 20,000 calories over maintenance with a diet purely composed of olive oil?

Is that seriously what you're trying to tell me?

Google: gluconeogenesis.

busywaterbending

wow, I think this troll is starting to understand what we are telling him! *applauds* hahahaha.

Low carb diets are def. the way to go, high fat diets and low carbs = healthy bodies with fat burning mode. That is the clear evidence that I and others, per your request, have provided for you and the OP.

-adding an edit remark after the obvious insult from utz. Look, I am being completely honest and serious here. I respect the OP enough to think that good information from doctors for her own research is allot better than to banter with you. I am not doing this for you, but now I see that you are not doing this for the OP either. You have insulted me and this wonderful forum. Goodbye.

LowCarbForLife

Everyone - before responding further, PLEASE read the following: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html

If you have any contentions with that article, which should take 5 minutes to read, bring it up here. I'd love to hear it.

Lyle says blah, blah, blah. Metabolic ward studies are not the be all and end all discussion he would have us believe they are. People cheat on them too and conditions are frequently less than rigorous.

To the low carb dieters justifiably irritated by a certain poster's condescending know-it-all (but really doesn't) attitude, just be patient and if he's true to his m.o. he'll post like crazy for a while and then leave. Even if he doesn't you always have the option of ignoring him since his posting pattern is just to ignore or discount any point you make.

mynameisuntz

wow, I think this troll is starting to understand what we are telling him! *applauds* hahahaha.

Low carb diets are def. the way to go, high fat diets and low carbs = healthy bodies with fat burning mode. That is the clear evidence that I and others, per your request, have provided for you and the OP. Good bye troll.

I guess you can't catch sarcasm.

I am telling you that you are delusional if you believe drinking 20,000 calories of olive oil will not result in unbelievable fat gain. Like, CRAZY delusional.

Lyle says blah, blah, blah. Metabolic ward studies are not the be all and end all discussion he would have us believe they are. People cheat on them too and conditions are frequently less than rigorous.

Are you familiar with Lyle? Like, the fact that HE is the one who made the ketogenic what it is today as far as its application to weight loss is concerned? He wrote the book.

And even he concedes that it is not all-superior to a diet higher in carbs.

It's funny you point out the flaws of studies Lyle may reference, but you have nothing to say about the study design of low carb diets? Like how they are typically NOT iso caloric? Or how they last 8 weeks? Cool water weight loss and greater feelings of satiety which led to less caloric intake and subsequently better results.

Burden of proof is on those making the claim. You claim low carb > moderate carb, YOU prove it. I have yet to see one person cite a single study.

mynameisuntz

To the low carb dieters justifiably irritated by a certain poster's condescending know-it-all (but really doesn't) attitude, just be patient and if he's true to his m.o. he'll post like crazy for a while and then leave. Even if he doesn't you always have the option of ignoring him since his posting pattern is just to ignore or discount any point you make.

That's just it. No one, not a single person, has brought forth a valid claim. Whenever I refute it, they lash out. People have brought up insulin more than anything, and I've refuted that without anyone bringing up a counter argument.

And not a SINGLE study has been posted showing the heightened efficacy of a low carb diet.

You condescend me and label me a so-called "know it all" yet you have failed to provide a SINGLE scientific fact for your beliefs while scrutinizing me for at least delivering some form of evidence.

Laughable logic.

LowCarbForLife

wow, I think this troll is starting to understand what we are telling him! *applauds* hahahaha.

Low carb diets are def. the way to go, high fat diets and low carbs = healthy bodies with fat burning mode. That is the clear evidence that I and others, per your request, have provided for you and the OP. Good bye troll.

I guess you can't catch sarcasm.

I am telling you that you are delusional if you believe drinking 20,000 calories of olive oil will not result in unbelievable fat gain. Like, CRAZY delusional.

Lyle says blah, blah, blah. Metabolic ward studies are not the be all and end all discussion he would have us believe they are. People cheat on them too and conditions are frequently less than rigorous.

Are you familiar with Lyle? Like, the fact that HE is the one who made the ketogenic what it is today as far as its application to weight loss is concerned? He wrote the book.

And even he concedes that it is not all-superior to a diet higher in carbs.

It's funny you point out the flaws of studies Lyle may reference, but you have nothing to say about the study design of low carb diets? Like how they are typically NOT iso caloric? Or how they last 8 weeks? Cool water weight loss and greater feelings of satiety which led to less caloric intake and subsequently better results.

Burden of proof is on those making the claim. You claim low carb > moderate carb, YOU prove it. I have yet to see one person cite a single study.

I have his book. I like his book, but he was not the first person to write about ketogenic diets and certainly not the last. The study I referenced earlier which showed significant weight loss differences between LCHF and HCLF diets which you avoided discussing was 6 months in length.

Confirmation bias much?

mynameisuntz

I have his book. I like his book, but he was not the first person to write about ketogenic diets and certainly not the last. The study I referenced earlier which showed significant weight loss differences between LCHF and HCLF diets which you avoided discussing was 6 months in length.

Confirmation bias much?

I did not see it - is it in this thread or another one?

I'm willing to bet a whole lot of money I've already seen it before, but I'd be glad to look at it again.

neanderthin

A persons daily energy needs/expenditure dictates fat storage over time, and what you eat and when, really doesn't matter for the majority of people. Saying that, adherence plays a big role on whether particular foods help in that role, and for a lot of people eating less carbs and more specifically less processed carbs can be more satiating, which can help in consuming less calories. As far as a metabolic advantage is concerned regarding a low/er carb diet, it's been done to death, and no, there is no metabolic advantage imo, with the exception when it's compared to high carb diet, which is lower fat and lower protein by default. Protein's higher thermic characteristics will be the metabolic atvantage there. Basically it's not the low carb that facilitates greater weight loss, it's the higher protein in the diet.

Basically when protein is held at a constant in the diet, it can be said that increasing carbs from the traditional low carb diet of around 5% will have a higher thermic effect on our digestion which translates into more calories burned through thermodynamics. Basically a very low carb diet is a waste of time for most people......exceptions would be for personal preference resulting in better adherence to the overall diet, or medical issues such as PCOS or MetS, D2, that kind of thing. Peace.

LowCarbForLife

To the low carb dieters justifiably irritated by a certain poster's condescending know-it-all (but really doesn't) attitude, just be patient and if he's true to his m.o. he'll post like crazy for a while and then leave. Even if he doesn't you always have the option of ignoring him since his posting pattern is just to ignore or discount any point you make.

That's just it. No one, not a single person, has brought forth a valid claim. Whenever I refute it, they lash out. People have brought up insulin more than anything, and I've refuted that without anyone bringing up a counter argument.

And not a SINGLE study has been posted showing the heightened efficacy of a low carb diet.

You condescend me and label me a so-called "know it all" yet you have failed to provide a SINGLE scientific fact for your beliefs while scrutinizing me for at least delivering some form of evidence.

Laughable logic.

That is the point. I DID provide a link to such a study in this thread and you ignored it.

Grokette

Insulin is a hormone secreted by the pancreas to help maintain optimal blood sugar level. Insulin's job is to remove sugar from the blood and store it, either as glycogen in the muscles and liver or, more frequently, as fat. Insulin is good. It helps maintain balance in the body. However, when triggered at the wrong times and in great amounts, insulin will make you fat. Preventing frequent and intense insulin responses is the single most critical step in reducing bodyfat for many people.

Insulin also has a negative affect on resting metabolic rate. Depending on the frequency and the severity of the insulin response, it may reduce the number of calories burned at rest by as much as eight percent! Over time, this could add up to a significant amount of extra bodyfat.

Carbohydrates are very simple molecules, which digest very quickly and easily. Even the most complex carbohydrate is nothing more than strings of sugars loosely tied together. Digestion of carbohydrates begins right in the mouth with an enzyme called Salivary Amylase, which is located in the saliva. By the time carbohydrates even reach the stomach, digestion is well underway and much of the carbohydrate you just ate is already sugar.

When you eat carbohydrates by themselves, they digest too quickly and the sugar enters the bloodstream all at once, sending your blood sugar level soaring. This sets off an alarm and the pancreas secretes insulin into the bloodstream to take some of the sugar out. This is a good response, preventing a dangerous situation, but it comes at a cost.

Severe insulin responses cause excess fat storage and low blood sugar. Low blood sugar causes a number of problems. The first is lethargy. Even mild activities seem exhausting. Another symptom of low blood sugar is mood swings. The greatest problem caused by low blood sugar when trying to reduce bodyfat is hunger. There are a number of different triggers for hunger and satiety. When blood sugar is the trigger, guess what specific cravings are usually manifested? You guessed it, carbohydrate. This sets up a vicious cycle:

Eat Carbohydrate

Increased Blood Sugar

Insulin Secreted

Carbohydrate Stored as Fat

Low Blood Sugar

Hunger (Carbohydrate Cravings?)

Eat Carbohydrate...

Eating can make you hungry and reduce energy levels. Repeatedly triggering the insulin response causes fat storage, hunger, and lethargy. Nobody intentionally makes themselves fat, hungry, and tired, but many people unknowingly do so several times every day.

KavemanKarg

Other factors, fat cannot cross into adipose tissue without carbs. It cannot happen. So if you ate ONLY fat and protein, and no carbs, you would never EVER increase your body fat stores no matter how many calories you ate. Fat must split and bind with carbs to cross into fat cells. Thus, those eating very low carb simply lack excess carbs to combine with fat, and allow dietary fat to cross the barrier into the fat cell.

So if you eat 20,000 calories of fat and protein, you will never increase your body fat stores?

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/how-we-get-fat.html

I'm sorry, but is there anywhere in there that actually refutes what I have stated?

In the very article you cite it is stated nobody could ingest 6000 calories and you come at me with 20,000?

I think they would just die before they gained weight. That is my answer to this silly question.

The point I am making is solid. There is a lot more going on then a calorie equals a calorie. Are you actually refuting that? If so, please pick up any biology text book and prove me wrong.

I don't have to look far, but since I cannot find medical text books online I am turning to wikipedia to prove my point under adipose tissue you will find:

Fat is not laid down when there is surplus calories available and stored passively until it is needed; rather it is constantly being stored in and released from the adipose tissue .

(Seems I said that)

Storage in the adipose tissue is catalysed by insulin, the activity of which is stimulated by high blood sugar

(And high blood sugar is caused by eating what macro-nutrient? Not fat, not protein, again, a calorie is not a calorie)

Fat cells have an important physiological role in maintaining triglyceride and free fatty acid levels, as well as determining insulin resistance. Abdominal fat has a different metabolic profile—being more prone to induce insulin resistance. This explains to a large degree why central obesity is a marker of impaired glucose tolerance and is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (even in the absence of diabetes mellitus and hypertension).[25] Studies of female monkeys at Wake Forest University (2009) discovered that individuals suffering from higher stress have higher levels of visceral fat in their bodies. This suggests a possible cause-and-effect link between the two, wherein stress promotes the accumulation of visceral fat, which in turn causes hormonal and metabolic changes that contribute to heart disease and other health problems.[26]

How does a calorie = a calorie theory explain insulin resistance? How does it explain genetic predisposition, that guy who can eat 10,000 a day, play XBOX and has ripped abs? Gonna tell me that is some amazing metabolic rate he has? Or is it more likely his fat cells just do not cycle inward as fast due to what I stated above, and the residue simply passes out his bowels and kidneys.

How does it explain cortisol and stress affecting weight loss?

Sleep or lack of it?

Decline in hormones as we age?

Off the top of my head I could likely go on and on with well known things that affect how fat you get that are far more complex than just calories in vs calories out.

The body also has the ability to expel those fatty acids in any form right out of the bowels without them being metabolized at all. That's right. Flushed down the toilet without even burning them at all. Anyone who ever spent a night eating 5 pounds of hot wings and beer can testify to that. Exercise and movement is not the only way our bodies can shed calories.

How do we account for food our body does not even fully digest in the calorie is a calorie theory? Fiber, by US law on food labels, can be counted as zero calories because it just passes through. Other foods in abundance can do the same given inadequate supplies of the other cooperating nutrients needed to break them down.

The body can also flush out ketones the same way in us low carbers, in someone in ketosis, as excess ketones go out in the urine when they are not burned by muscles. Another example of energy being disposed of instead of stored. Ketones have calories right? Infact they are the preferred fuel of the heart and most of us have hearts that run 24/7 so I am going to say that ketones likely have caloric value to supply that.

The body is a self regulating system that strives for homeostasis. When you work out for hours, you get hungrier. It is your body attempting to gain equilibrium, homeostasis. That is why they say "You cannot out exercise a bad diet", because we know that is true!

The body is self regulating and mythical and we hardly understand it at all in fact. We eat carbs, and carbs trigger insulin and that causes your adipose tissue to suck up fatty acids and get fat. This is well known, and infact exploited by bodybuilders and champions because the same mechanism, when timing is controlled, drives glucose and protein into muscles.

My central point is pretty much indisputable.

Caloric balance is only ONE of MANY factors. It is a simple view of an extremely complicated biological series of many systems that work together, some antagonistic, some synergistic, some catalysis-tic.

KavemanKarg

You condescend me and label me a so-called "know it all" yet you have failed to provide a SINGLE scientific fact for your beliefs while scrutinizing me for at least delivering some form of evidence.

Laughable logic.

That is the point. I DID provide a link to such a study in this thread and you ignored it.

And here is one from Stanford that lasted a year, and was run by a vegan PHD.

Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

mynameisuntz

That is the point. I DID provide a link to such a study in this thread and you ignored it.

I JUST said I did not see it.

Your first study isn't a study - it's a review. Meaningless. Post the RCTs if you want responses.

Second study did NOT keep protein consistent. The low carb group ate 10% more protein at 3 months out, and 5% more at 6 months out. This study was not isocaloric in its energy distribution. Also this was performed on obese women without measures for insulin sensitivity being reported. The study also does not account for WATER WEIGHT LOSS in the low carb group, which is to be expected.

And don't forget this gem:

"lean body mass decreased significantly more in the very low carbohydrate group compared with the low fat group at both 3 and 6 months (P < 0.01)."

I fail to see how this study proves that low carb diets are superior when it is applied to obese women, without mention of reported insulin resistance, greater loss in LEAN body mass, and variables unaccounted for (discrepancies in calories + macronutrients).

mynameisuntz

Insulin is a hormone secreted by the pancreas to help maintain optimal blood sugar level. Insulin's job is to remove sugar from the blood and store it, either as glycogen in the muscles and liver or, more frequently, as fat. Insulin is good. It helps maintain balance in the body. However, when triggered at the wrong times and in great amounts, insulin will make you fat. Preventing frequent and intense insulin responses is the single most critical step in reducing bodyfat for many people.

Questions:

1) What happens to insulin sensitivity as you lose weight regardless of macronutrient composition?
2) When does your body decide to store CHO as lipids?
3) What do you make of this graphic:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Lipolysis-Lipogenesis1.png

KavemanKarg

That is the point. I DID provide a link to such a study in this thread and you ignored it.

I JUST said I did not see it.

Your first study isn't a study - it's a review. Meaningless. Post the RCTs if you want responses.

Second study did NOT keep protein consistent. The low carb group ate 10% more protein at 3 months out, and 5% more at 6 months out. This study was not isocaloric in its energy distribution. Also this was performed on obese women without measures for insulin sensitivity being reported. The study also does not account for WATER WEIGHT LOSS in the low carb group, which is to be expected.

And don't forget this gem:

"lean body mass decreased significantly more in the very low carbohydrate group compared with the low fat group at both 3 and 6 months (P < 0.01)."

I fail to see how this study proves that low carb diets are superior when it is applied to obese women, without mention of reported insulin resistance, greater loss in LEAN body mass, and variables unaccounted for (discrepancies in calories + macronutrients).

Water weight loss? 129 pounds now someone has been telling me its water weight. How much weight have you lost so far?

Water weight is another topic that truly annoys me as it is a garbage bag term for people that will not admit something is working from day one.

KavemanKarg

3) What do you make of this graphic:

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Lipolysis-Lipogenesis1.png

I think the graphic lacks any numbers and is simply drawn up as an illustration to prove a point that without citation is meaningless.

However, lets assume it is true and that you now eat less insulin producing foods. What would your graph look like then.

From the point of view of a person with a lot of weight to lose, I would think the second, imaginary graph, without nearly so much green, would be ideal.

Its a very pretty graph.

mynameisuntz

@KavemanKarg

No way I can respond to that novel of a post. Condense it, summarize some central points of contention, or it will sit without response from me.

Sum it up in a paragraph or two, and just get to the point quick and I'll respond.