Calorie zig-zagging

Jenhal71
Jenhal71 Posts: 10
edited September 27 in Food and Nutrition
Would someone please explain calorie zig zagging to me? I've heard that it benefits a lot of people...I'd like to give it a try, but I'd like all the details of it first....Thanks!

Replies

  • picturesing
    picturesing Posts: 228
    Someone just posted this link...I haven't looked at it yet....but VERY interested also!
    freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calculator.htm
  • TrainerRobin
    TrainerRobin Posts: 509 Member
    You may already accidentally do this. Essentially, it's varying the calories you eat so you're not eating at a low calorie level consistently, day after day. Research has shown that our bodies don't start sagging into a lower metabolic mode due to calorie deprivation until about 72 hours (every body is different). The point of zig zagging (the current trendy way of describing it) is to eat at a low calorie level for a couple of days and then toss in a higher calorie day to keep your body from downshifting into what some call the "starvation" mode.

    This is typical for me. A high day every three or four days. I've never dropped into that plateau mode. If I'm not losing, its because I'm not eating too few calories. :)
  • thisis4me
    thisis4me Posts: 219 Member
    Bump!
  • selfdiscipline73
    selfdiscipline73 Posts: 74 Member
    Bump!
  • Jenhal71
    Jenhal71 Posts: 10
    Thanks for the info!! I've checked out the website and I've now got a plan! I've been trying to stay at about 1200 calories/day and I haven't been deviating from it too much. I'm going to give this a try and see how it goes!!!
  • deathtaco
    deathtaco Posts: 237
    In my opinion, caloric cycling is only effective if you carb cycle in conjunction. If you eat 60% carbs one day, and less, but still 60% carbs the next, not really doing you much good.
  • TrainerRobin
    TrainerRobin Posts: 509 Member
    In my opinion, caloric cycling is only effective if you carb cycle in conjunction. If you eat 60% carbs one day, and less, but still 60% carbs the next, not really doing you much good.

    If you've got some studies/science behind that, I'd love to have the source so I can read up.
    Not challenging you ... genuinely interested because I've never seen any of the science/research behind that.
  • deathtaco
    deathtaco Posts: 237
    I'll try to find some studies for you. But the reasoning is that carb/fat relations should be inverse in quantity. If you're working out you need higher carbs to promote muscle growth/limit loss; and thus you keep to a generally lower fat diet. If you cut calories on your off days, you don't need as many carbs, thus your fat levels can go up a bit (granted carbs:fat calorie ratio is 1:2.25).

    I highly suggest you look up some Layne Norton or Martin Berkman articles, or even Alan Aragon.

    Layne Norton is a bodybuilder (don't dismiss this please!) but has a PhD in nutrition.
    Martin Berkman is a nutrionist and delved heavily into the intermittent fasting theory, and also promotes carb cycling to regulate grehlin and leptin.
    Alan Aragon is pretty much the king of Nutrition and fitness.
  • deaftolight
    deaftolight Posts: 20 Member
    I'll try to find some studies for you. But the reasoning is that carb/fat relations should be inverse in quantity. If you're working out you need higher carbs to promote muscle growth/limit loss; and thus you keep to a generally lower fat diet. If you cut calories on your off days, you don't need as many carbs, thus your fat levels can go up a bit (granted carbs:fat calorie ratio is 1:2.25).

    I highly suggest you look up some Layne Norton or Martin Berkman articles, or even Alan Aragon.

    Layne Norton is a bodybuilder (don't dismiss this please!) but has a PhD in nutrition.
    Martin Berkman is a nutrionist and delved heavily into the intermittent fasting theory, and also promotes carb cycling to regulate grehlin and leptin.
    Alan Aragon is pretty much the king of Nutrition and fitness.

    I follow all of those guys, especially Alan Aragon. That definitely doesn't sound like something Alan would say: http://alanaragon.com/carbs-fat-friends-after-all.html

    So yes, if you could find some studies, I would love to see them! Also not trying to challenge, but am genuinely interested since you mentioned those names.
  • dbmata
    dbmata Posts: 12,950 Member
    You may already accidentally do this. Essentially, it's varying the calories you eat so you're not eating at a low calorie level consistently, day after day. Research has shown that our bodies don't start sagging into a lower metabolic mode due to calorie deprivation until about 72 hours (every body is different). The point of zig zagging (the current trendy way of describing it) is to eat at a low calorie level for a couple of days and then toss in a higher calorie day to keep your body from downshifting into what some call the "starvation" mode.

    This is typical for me. A high day every three or four days. I've never dropped into that plateau mode. If I'm not losing, its because I'm not eating too few calories. :)
    Huh, go figure. This is basically what I do thanks to my social life. Some days high, some days low. My POV is that as long as you try to hit everything over the long term, short term variance isn't as important.
  • chutch93
    chutch93 Posts: 9
    i've eaten low calories for weeks on end and still continued to lose the same weight every week. "Calorie zig zagging" does nothing more than sate cravings to break your diet which even i have been guilty of many times during my 6 months of weight loss. Your body doesnt go into starvation mode because starvation mode doesnt exist. Metabolic damage is a serious health issue and if u have tht happen to you, you should head to the doctor. SO there is no true benefit to calorie zig zagging other than a mental break to your diet which is often needed.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories