Low Carbs? Customized Nurtional Goals

jleed53

I customized my nutrional goals to be 25% carbs, 45% protein, and 30% fat. What do you guys think about the low carb idea? I heard your body burns carbs before fat, so this might help me loose fat!

Acg67

I customized my nutrional goals to be 25% carbs, 45% protein, and 30% fat. What do you guys think about the low carb idea? I heard your body burns carbs before fat, so this might help me loose fat!

Repeated metabolic ward studies have shown no metabolic advantage to low carb diets (means you don't lose more fat on a low carb vs mixed diet)

sed484

When I was seeing a nutritionist, she had me on 45%. Your body needs carbs for energy, without them, you will not have the energy to exercise! You need carbs to lose weight in a safe and sustainable manner.

Grokette

I customized my nutrional goals to be 25% carbs, 45% protein, and 30% fat. What do you guys think about the low carb idea? I heard your body burns carbs before fat, so this might help me loose fat!

Repeated metabolic ward studies have shown no metabolic advantage to low carb diets (means you don't lose more fat on a low carb vs mixed diet)

It is mighty funny you keep saying that, but this study from 2004 is saying otherwise............check out the bolded areas.........

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/

Over the course of the study, subjects consumed an extra 25,000 kcal that should have added up to about a 7 pounds weight gain; it did not. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant, so the researchers knew exactly what they ate, and one could not argue that diets were not palatable. Finally, a recent randomised, balanced, two diet study compared effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted ketogenic and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight/obese men (n = 15) and women (n = 13) [20]. Despite significantly greater calorie intake (1855 vs. 1562 kcal/day), both between and within group comparison revealed a distinct advantage of a ketogenic diet over a low-fat diet for weight loss/fat loss for men. In fact, 5 men showed more than 10 pounds difference in weight loss. Majority of women also responded more favourable to the ketogenic diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. Furthermore, the individual responses revealed that three men and four women who did the ketogenic diet first, regained body mass and fat mass after the switch to the low-fat, whereas no subjects regained weight or fat mass after switching to the ketogenic diet.

Grokette

When I was seeing a nutritionist, she had me on 45%. Your body needs carbs for energy, without them, you will not have the energy to exercise! You need carbs to lose weight in a safe and sustainable manner.

We don't NEED carbs for energy. When we switch over to fat burning system, we have plenty of energy for exercising, etc. Most times we have too much energy.

Grokette

I customized my nutrional goals to be 25% carbs, 45% protein, and 30% fat. What do you guys think about the low carb idea? I heard your body burns carbs before fat, so this might help me loose fat!

Hi there.

Personally, my ratios are similar (may vary a bit day by day but averages out) to 10% carbs / 30% protein / 60% fat.

You will have to play around and see what works for you.

Acg67

I customized my nutrional goals to be 25% carbs, 45% protein, and 30% fat. What do you guys think about the low carb idea? I heard your body burns carbs before fat, so this might help me loose fat!

Repeated metabolic ward studies have shown no metabolic advantage to low carb diets (means you don't lose more fat on a low carb vs mixed diet)

It is mighty funny you keep saying that, but this study from 2004 is saying otherwise............check out the bolded areas.........

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/

Over the course of the study, subjects consumed an extra 25,000 kcal that should have added up to about a 7 pounds weight gain; it did not. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant, so the researchers knew exactly what they ate, and one could not argue that diets were not palatable. Finally, a recent randomised, balanced, two diet study compared effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted ketogenic and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight/obese men (n = 15) and women (n = 13) [20]. Despite significantly greater calorie intake (1855 vs. 1562 kcal/day), both between and within group comparison revealed a distinct advantage of a ketogenic diet over a low-fat diet for weight loss/fat loss for men. In fact, 5 men showed more than 10 pounds difference in weight loss. Majority of women also responded more favourable to the ketogenic diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. Furthermore, the individual responses revealed that three men and four women who did the ketogenic diet first, regained body mass and fat mass after the switch to the low-fat, whereas no subjects regained weight or fat mass after switching to the ketogenic diet.

You are not very good with reading comprehension, the bolded section refers to this study, which is not a controlled metabolic ward study and relies on self reported data

Greene P, Willett W, et al. Pilot 12-week feeding weight loss comparison: low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) dietsObes Res. 2003;11:A23.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n11s/full/oby2004278a.html

sed484

This article says we DO need carbs for energy. http://www.swisse.com/health-hub/health-news/food-and-nutrition/carbohydrates-do-we-really-need-them

sed484

If that's really your body Acg67, then I feel pretty inclined to believe you. Whatever you're doing, it sure is working!

Grokette

I customized my nutrional goals to be 25% carbs, 45% protein, and 30% fat. What do you guys think about the low carb idea? I heard your body burns carbs before fat, so this might help me loose fat!

Repeated metabolic ward studies have shown no metabolic advantage to low carb diets (means you don't lose more fat on a low carb vs mixed diet)

This was a controlled study, no one prepped their own food or anything of the such. Read the WHOLE article........

And then it goes on to say..............

It is increasingly clear that the idea that "a calorie is a calorie" is misleading. The calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption. Different diets (e.g., high-protein/low-carbohydrate vs. low-protein/high-carbohydrate) lead to different biochemical pathways (due to the hormonal and enzymatic changes) that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics [6]. Unless one measures heat and the biomolecules synthesized using ATP, it is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage. Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start [31]." However, there will be metabolic accommodations and one cannot assume that the metabolic advantage (i.e., greater weight loss compared to isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet) will stay the same over a long term. The ideal weight loss diet, if it even exists, remains to be determined, but a high-carbohydrate/low-protein diet may be unsatisfactory for many obese individuals.

It is mighty funny you keep saying that, but this study from 2004 is saying otherwise............check out the bolded areas.........

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129158/

Over the course of the study, subjects consumed an extra 25,000 kcal that should have added up to about a 7 pounds weight gain; it did not. The study was unique because all the food was prepared at an upscale Italian restaurant, so the researchers knew exactly what they ate, and one could not argue that diets were not palatable. Finally, a recent randomised, balanced, two diet study compared effects of isocaloric, energy-restricted ketogenic and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight/obese men (n = 15) and women (n = 13) [20]. Despite significantly greater calorie intake (1855 vs. 1562 kcal/day), both between and within group comparison revealed a distinct advantage of a ketogenic diet over a low-fat diet for weight loss/fat loss for men. In fact, 5 men showed more than 10 pounds difference in weight loss. Majority of women also responded more favourable to the ketogenic diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. Furthermore, the individual responses revealed that three men and four women who did the ketogenic diet first, regained body mass and fat mass after the switch to the low-fat, whereas no subjects regained weight or fat mass after switching to the ketogenic diet.

You are not very good with reading comprehension, the bolded section refers to this study, which is not a controlled metabolic ward study and relies on self reported data

Greene P, Willett W, et al. Pilot 12-week feeding weight loss comparison: low-fat vs. low-carbohydrate (ketogenic) dietsObes Res. 2003;11:A23.

http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v12/n11s/full/oby2004278a.html

Acg67

This was a controlled study, no one prepped their own food or anything of the such. Read the WHOLE article........

And then it goes on to say..............

It is increasingly clear that the idea that "a calorie is a calorie" is misleading. The calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption. Different diets (e.g., high-protein/low-carbohydrate vs. low-protein/high-carbohydrate) lead to different biochemical pathways (due to the hormonal and enzymatic changes) that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics [6]. Unless one measures heat and the biomolecules synthesized using ATP, it is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage. Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start [31]." However, there will be metabolic accommodations and one cannot assume that the metabolic advantage (i.e., greater weight loss compared to isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet) will stay the same over a long term. The ideal weight loss diet, if it even exists, remains to be determined, but a high-carbohydrate/low-protein diet may be unsatisfactory for many obese individuals.

Wow, the passage you quoted was not from a study but a meta analysis of studies. The study i referred to and what was referenced i posted a link to and what does it say?

"An electronic digital scale (model 3001; Salter Housewares Ltd, Tonbridge, England), a set of calibrated measuring spoons, and a calibrated measuring cup were provided to each participant so that participants could measure and prepare their own breakfasts, snacks, and calorie adjustment foods according to specific study recipes"

Come on, please read things before making silly statements

Grokette

This article says we DO need carbs for energy. http://www.swisse.com/health-hub/health-news/food-and-nutrition/carbohydrates-do-we-really-need-them

Carbohydrates are in no way necessary. Not in the least.

Many believe that carbohydrates are necessary to maintain our energy levels, but the body can utilize fatty acids ("good" dietary fats such as butter, coconut oil, lard, and naturally occurring animal fats) for energy, as well as convert protein into glucose on an as-needed basis. "The mitochondria* in our cells, the organelles* that generate energy for us, are specifically designed to use fat for energy," said Dr. Allan. "Furthermore, many organs prefer fat as an energy source--not glucose," he concluded. Indeed, the heart prefers naturally saturated fatty acids for its energy needs, not glucose (30).

*mitochondria and organelles are specialized parts of a cell that carry out some specific functions.

58% of protein and 10% of fat can be changed into glucose inside the body.

Another myth is that one needs to eat lots of fruits and vegetables to get enough vitamins and minerals each day. But Dr. Allan counters that, "While we do get some vitamins and minerals from plant foods, we can get more of them from animal foods. Even more importantly, there are many vitamins and cofactors that we only get from animal foods." Dr. Allan also commented that the public are misled into thinking that animal foods do not provide many nutrients because food-nutrient tables typically exclude animal foods from their lists, listing only plant foods instead. The reality is, however, that animal foods contain higher levels of almost every nutrient. Vitamins like A and D (and B12) are only found in animal foods and nutritional factors like carnitine and CoQ10 are predominantly found in animal foods as well.

stormieweather

My personal experience, based on no scientific evidence whatsoever, is that I do better at slightly lower carbs, but horribly at very low carbs. I lose weight better with high protein. A high fat diet begins to disgust me after a surprisingly short period of time. I simply cannot sustain it. Which clearly is not conducive to losing weight, lol.

I eat whole grain carbs and natural carbs from veggies/fruit, low fat, high protein (40c/30f30p). Works very well...FOR ME.

Missnurse89

You can get carbs from anything & everything. So get your carbs from veggies instead of bread and pasta and that should def help.

Grokette

This was a controlled study, no one prepped their own food or anything of the such. Read the WHOLE article........

And then it goes on to say..............

It is increasingly clear that the idea that "a calorie is a calorie" is misleading. The calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption. Different diets (e.g., high-protein/low-carbohydrate vs. low-protein/high-carbohydrate) lead to different biochemical pathways (due to the hormonal and enzymatic changes) that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics [6]. Unless one measures heat and the biomolecules synthesized using ATP, it is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage. Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start [31]." However, there will be metabolic accommodations and one cannot assume that the metabolic advantage (i.e., greater weight loss compared to isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet) will stay the same over a long term. The ideal weight loss diet, if it even exists, remains to be determined, but a high-carbohydrate/low-protein diet may be unsatisfactory for many obese individuals.

Wow, the passage you quoted was not from a study but a meta analysis of studies. The study i referred to and what was referenced i posted a link to and what does it say?

"An electronic digital scale (model 3001; Salter Housewares Ltd, Tonbridge, England), a set of calibrated measuring spoons, and a calibrated measuring cup were provided to each participant so that participants could measure and prepare their own breakfasts, snacks, and calorie adjustment foods according to specific study recipes"

Come on, please read things before making silly statements

I am not making silly statements. There are too many people out here shredding fat losses with a controlled carb lifestyle.

You and I both know that carbs are not essential, so why portray them as such?

Grokette

This article says we DO need carbs for energy. http://www.swisse.com/health-hub/health-news/food-and-nutrition/carbohydrates-do-we-really-need-them

Carbohydrates are not necessary building blocks of other molecules, and the body can obtain all its energy from protein and fats.[11][12] The brain and neurons generally cannot burn fat for energy, but use glucose or ketones. Humans can synthesize some glucose (in a set of processes known as gluconeogenesis) from specific amino acids, from the glycerol backbone in triglycerides and in some cases from fatty acids. Carbohydrate and protein contain 4 kilocalories per gram, while fats contain 9 kilocalories per gram. In the case of protein, this is somewhat misleading as only some amino acids are usable for fuel.
Organisms typically cannot metabolize all types of carbohydrate to yield energy. Glucose is a nearly universal and accessible source of calories. Many organisms also have the ability to metabolize other monosaccharides and Disaccharides, though glucose is preferred. In Escherichia coli, for example, the lac operon will express enzymes for the digestion of lactose when it is present, but if both lactose and glucose are present the lac operon is repressed, resulting in the glucose being used first (see: Diauxie). Polysaccharides are also common sources of energy. Many organisms can easily break down starches into glucose, however, most organisms cannot metabolize cellulose or other polysaccharides like chitin and arabinoxylans. These carbohydrates types can be metabolized by some bacteria and protists. Ruminants and termites, for example, use microorganisms to process cellulose. Even though these complex carbohydrates are not very digestible, they may comprise important dietary elements for humans. Called dietary fiber, these carbohydrates enhance digestion among other benefits. [13]

kerriBB37

If you want to burn fat, workout in your fat burning zone, which is generally a low HR.
I do a lot of interval training, for example, running for 2 minutes and walking for 4.. I make sure to get my HR up over 160 during those two minutes and then it comes back down for the 4. This is the best way to burn fat! My fat burning zone is between 120-140. My suggestion is to figure out yours and be smart with your workouts!

melissainez85

im on atkins so i lowered my carb count in the setting and i read the book about it so once there are less bad carbs in ur diet ur body will burn fat over the bad carbs so ur right on track..its working for me..good luck

amycal

I was at a weekly seminar with a bunch of trainers this morning and they said you should have blood work and discuss with a doctor what your macro ratios should be. I know when I drop the carbs, I drop the pounds. I have never put on weight on days when I eat a lot of meat and fats. I also feel good. However if I don't get enough fiber I don't feel so good after a few days so I am trying to find a balance.

Acg67

This was a controlled study, no one prepped their own food or anything of the such. Read the WHOLE article........

And then it goes on to say..............

It is increasingly clear that the idea that "a calorie is a calorie" is misleading. The calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption. Different diets (e.g., high-protein/low-carbohydrate vs. low-protein/high-carbohydrate) lead to different biochemical pathways (due to the hormonal and enzymatic changes) that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics [6]. Unless one measures heat and the biomolecules synthesized using ATP, it is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage. Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start [31]." However, there will be metabolic accommodations and one cannot assume that the metabolic advantage (i.e., greater weight loss compared to isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet) will stay the same over a long term. The ideal weight loss diet, if it even exists, remains to be determined, but a high-carbohydrate/low-protein diet may be unsatisfactory for many obese individuals.

Wow, the passage you quoted was not from a study but a meta analysis of studies. The study i referred to and what was referenced i posted a link to and what does it say?

"An electronic digital scale (model 3001; Salter Housewares Ltd, Tonbridge, England), a set of calibrated measuring spoons, and a calibrated measuring cup were provided to each participant so that participants could measure and prepare their own breakfasts, snacks, and calorie adjustment foods according to specific study recipes"

Come on, please read things before making silly statements

I am not making silly statements. There are too many people out here shredding fat losses with a controlled carb lifestyle.

You and I both know that carbs are not essential, so why portray them as such?

I have never portrayed carbs as being essential, what i have said is that there is no metabolic advantage to low carb diets, which is something the OP had heard.

And you are making silly statements, you tried to refute my statement that there is no metabolic advantage to low carb diets with a meta analysis of non metabolic ward studies, then said that no one prepared their own food in response to the full study i posted that you referenced and said a meta analysis was a controlled study.

amysj303

That's pretty low. I have mine set to 40/30/30 for carbs/fats/protein. I did read about a study that showed people who kept carbs under 45% lost more belly fat than those eating the same calories at 55% carbs, and belly fat is my prob.
I don't think I could keep carbs at 25%.
I am following the Jamie Eason live-fit trainer and we are supposed to limit starchy carbs after 3pm. Later, there's carb cycling, which is supposed to encourage your body to burn fat, we'll see how it goes.

jleed53

My personal experience, based on no scientific evidence whatsoever, is that I do better at slightly lower carbs, but horribly at very low carbs. I lose weight better with high protein. A high fat diet begins to disgust me after a surprisingly short period of time. I simply cannot sustain it. Which clearly is not conducive to losing weight, lol.

I eat whole grain carbs and natural carbs from veggies/fruit, low fat, high protein (40c/30f30p). Works very well...FOR ME.

Great response! Thanks for the advise... i think i need to focus on getting my carbs from veggies/fruits, rather than grains! Thanks again! Congrats on all your progress so far!

jleed53

That's pretty low. I have mine set to 40/30/30 for carbs/fats/protein. I did read about a study that showed people who kept carbs under 45% lost more belly fat than those eating the same calories at 55% carbs, and belly fat is my prob.
I don't think I could keep carbs at 25%.
I am following the Jamie Eason live-fit trainer and we are supposed to limit starchy carbs after 3pm. Later, there's carb cycling, which is supposed to encourage your body to burn fat, we'll see how it goes.

I think you're right! 25% does seem a bit low.... maybe i'll try 35% at first and see how that works. BUt ya, good point about not having starchy carbs after 3...

thanks again for the response!

jleed53

I was at a weekly seminar with a bunch of trainers this morning and they said you should have blood work and discuss with a doctor what your macro ratios should be. I know when I drop the carbs, I drop the pounds. I have never put on weight on days when I eat a lot of meat and fats. I also feel good. However if I don't get enough fiber I don't feel so good after a few days so I am trying to find a balance.

Ahhh very good advice! I should talk to my doctor. I struggle with fibre too. Do you take any fibre supplements?

Grokette

This was a controlled study, no one prepped their own food or anything of the such. Read the WHOLE article........

And then it goes on to say..............

It is increasingly clear that the idea that "a calorie is a calorie" is misleading. The calorie content may not be as predictive of fat loss as is reduced carbohydrate consumption. Different diets (e.g., high-protein/low-carbohydrate vs. low-protein/high-carbohydrate) lead to different biochemical pathways (due to the hormonal and enzymatic changes) that are not equivalent when correctly compared through the laws of thermodynamics [6]. Unless one measures heat and the biomolecules synthesized using ATP, it is inappropriate to assume that the only thing that counts in terms of food consumption and energy balance is the intake of dietary calories and weight storage. Recently, Feinman and Fine concluded: "Metabolic advantage with low carbohydrate diets is well established in the literature... Attacking the obesity epidemic will involve giving up many old ideas that have not been productive. "A calorie is a calorie" might be a good place to start [31]." However, there will be metabolic accommodations and one cannot assume that the metabolic advantage (i.e., greater weight loss compared to isocaloric high-carbohydrate diet) will stay the same over a long term. The ideal weight loss diet, if it even exists, remains to be determined, but a high-carbohydrate/low-protein diet may be unsatisfactory for many obese individuals.

Wow, the passage you quoted was not from a study but a meta analysis of studies. The study i referred to and what was referenced i posted a link to and what does it say?

"An electronic digital scale (model 3001; Salter Housewares Ltd, Tonbridge, England), a set of calibrated measuring spoons, and a calibrated measuring cup were provided to each participant so that participants could measure and prepare their own breakfasts, snacks, and calorie adjustment foods according to specific study recipes"

Come on, please read things before making silly statements

I am not making silly statements. There are too many people out here shredding fat losses with a controlled carb lifestyle.

You and I both know that carbs are not essential, so why portray them as such?

I have never portrayed carbs as being essential, what i have said is that there is no metabolic advantage to low carb diets, which is something the OP had heard.

And you are making silly statements, you tried to refute my statement that there is no metabolic advantage to low carb diets with a meta analysis of non metabolic ward studies, then said that no one prepared their own food in response to the full study i posted that you referenced and said a meta analysis was a controlled study.

I don't have access to the studies my Endocrinologist gave to me from Washington University in regards to this, but there is a metabolic advantage to lowering carb intake versus traditional calories in / calories out thinking.

That is why the low carbing people are able to eat much more calories and lose weight effortlessly where traditional calorie counters can not.

The carbs (especially starchy ones) do have a detrimental effect on the human body.

MacMadame

People are always saying we need carbs for energy or for our brain but this believe is based on a misunderstanding of how our bodies work. Our brains need glucose and carbs are an easy fuel to make glucose. But glucose can be made from any calorie source. There are essential fatty acids (fats) and essential amino acids (proteins) that our bodies can not make from other sources -- we have to consume them. But there are no essential carbohydrates.

So technically we don't *need* carbs. OTOH, it's pretty much impossible to not eat them. They are in everything but meat, fish and eggs. Plus, there is no upside to avoiding all carbs. There is an upside to avoiding some and avoiding too many.

Carbs are a source of quick energy. They are good to consume around exercise because they convert to energy so quickly. But, again, the body can get energy from fats and proteins, if necessary. I think of carbs as kindling. They light fast but burn out fast too. This is particularly true of simple carbs that can lead to a crash after their energy boost.

Proteins are a slower burning energy source. They are more like the sticks of wood on a fire. They take more work to catch fire but once they are burning, they last a long time. For people with sedentary jobs, protein is an excellent source of energy since we don't need quick energy and they keep us satiated longer.

Fats are the slowest burning energy source. They are like the big logs on the fire that burn forever but give off a low level of heat (energy). They also provide a better satiety than carbs. This is another reason why getting an adequate amount fat in the diet is not a bad thing in spite of the way we've been conditioned to think of fat as evil. But they are more calorie dense than protein and carbs so a little goes a long way.

To the OP: I don't worry so much about the percentages. I think using percentages can be misleading. I know I need at least 120 g of protein a day (and even that much leaves me with low serum protein levels) and I try to keep my carbs under 200 g when doing a lot of endurance workouts and under 100 g if I'm not working out much. But what percentage that turns out to be depends a lot on what my total calories are. I think I have MFP set to 35/35/30 to get the goals near what I want them to be but I actually eat more like 33/33/33.

But that's at 1400-1700 calories a day. When I'm training for something and eating 2000 calories a day, the percentages I set MFP to are very different.

domfredy

...I don't know if it helps any one but here it goes... I don't pay any attention to Carbs, Prot or Fat... I eat whatever I feel like eating on that perticular time and day... All I try to do is watch what I am eating, trying to make it as healthy as I can. I make sure I dont go over my daily calorie goal. thats all I do... And so far I been doing good... I lost 32 pounds on MFP and 47 pounds all together... Every other scientists contradicts each other, we doing know whats what... Use the knowledge you have and follow your body...

url=http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker][/url]
Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Weight Loss Tools

juliapurpletoes

What is important about carb intake is to eat what makes you feel good but make it come from great sources.

Vegetables and fruits, not grains (corn, oats, wheat, rye, barley, etc). Grains are not easy for our systems to digest, and are processed to a point where the inportant nutrients are stripped away and "re-fortified" this just isn't good food. The nutrtients are better found in vegetable and fruits sources.

Stick with ENOUGH veggie and fruits to get to whatever carb amount you want to eat is....stay away from the processed "fiber bars" grains and general crap in the grocery stores.....

my two cents! :flowerforyou:

MacMadame

If you want to burn fat, workout in your fat burning zone, which is generally a low HR.
I do a lot of interval training, for example, running for 2 minutes and walking for 4.. I make sure to get my HR up over 160 during those two minutes and then it comes back down for the 4. This is the best way to burn fat! My fat burning zone is between 120-140. My suggestion is to figure out yours and be smart with your workouts!

The Fat Burning Zone is a myth. Yes, at lower aerobic thresholds, your body burns a higher percentage of calories. But a higher percentage of a low number is still a low number. The best way to burn more fat is to exercise more and harder so you burn more calories overall.

As an example:

You walk on the treadmill for an hour and keep your heart rate in proper zone and burn 200 calories. About 75% of those are fat. That's 150 calories from fat
You run on the treadmill for the same time and your HR is higher. You burn 600 calories. 35% are from fat. That's 210 calories from fat!

So you've burned 60 more calories from fat by running at a high HR than walking in your so-called "Fat Burning Zone"

Of course, this assumes you actually know what your zones are. That formula 220-your age is completely worthless. It isn't accurate for most people. In one study of athletes in their early 20s who were on a team together, they found that Max Heart Rate varied across the full spectrum of possibilities from very low (around 160) to very high (220). There was no correlation with age, fitness level, etc.

So most people working out in their "fat burning zone" aren't even in the right zone!

Plus, it doesn't just matter what is burned during the actual exercise. That's because, at night while we sleep, our energy sources are rebalanced. So if most of our muscle and liver glycogen (stored carbs) is burned off during the day by exercising hard, the body takes stored fat and converts it into glycogen and replenishes our stores at rest.

So even if you do an exercise where not as much fat was burned during that exercise, the fat gets burned eventually.

Quiing

I'm doing 70/25/5 (fat/proten/carb).

kir911

personally I am eating high lean protein, low STARCHY carbs and good fats (i.e. nuts, peanut butter, olive oil etc) I am not avoiding all carbs, just starchy carbs. I am eating veggies, fruits, and carbs from dairy (but kinda limiting those). I feel awesome! I have great energy, lots of power for my workouts. I am doing alot of metabolic conditioning with weights so I need the protein. If you aren't weight training, you may not need this much protein. I find I lose better when I limit or avoid starchy carbs.