Personal trainer says no carbs til dinner
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
Fat adaptation means you are oxidizing fat as a primary substrate but it does not mean greater losses in body fat IF we are comparing scenarios where calories and protein are matched.9 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
In a previous reply though you said that you burn fat (dietary and body fat) faster than most. And this seems to come across as claiming that being fat adapted results in greater whole body fat loss compared to someone who isn't, and I think this is misleading.10 -
Regarding the original post:
It sounds like bad advice, and it could be bad advice, however there's a (likely incredibly) small chance that something was misunderstood, OR that he has some alternative reason for suggesting that you position your carbohydrates at night.
I can certainly think of examples where I would be a bit more concerned about the placement of carbohydrate throughout the day relative to appetite or performance/recovery aspects to training, and these things could have a downstream effect on fat loss (note: nothing outside of energy balance, but how it may influence intake/expenditure).
But at the surface, I suspect it's crap.10 -
colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
Are you familiar with Krieger's work?
Highly recommend it as he's pretty thoroughly dismantled the insulin hypothesis.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/7 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
Fat adaptation means you are oxidizing fat as a primary substrate but it does not mean greater losses in body fat IF we are comparing scenarios where calories and protein are matched.midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
In a previous reply though you said that you burn fat (dietary and body fat) faster than most. And this seems to come across as claiming that being fat adapted results in greater whole body fat loss compared to someone who isn't, and I think this is misleading.
I was very clear that body fat loss isn't greater under the one circumstance over the other. If you understand something I didn't write - something that I clearly explained was NOT my point - that is on you, not me.0 -
colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
The glycemic index is pretty much useless and additionally the glycemic index is not a marker of digestion rate, it's a measure of total rise in blood glucose over time.
(Just for example, glucose clearance rates have to be taken into account https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14522732)
4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.15 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »I already called him an idiot but id like to point out maybe a question,
Anyone have thoughts on why they think trainers dont make it a priority to properly research nutrition before handing out broscience? Like seriously if it was my job to make someone fit and healthy id research all aspects. Wonder why its not part of their schooling. Even i know thats rediculous and iv done no schooling just basic research on what my body requires for my journey.
Way to common.
Because if they train you into being a repeat customer, they earn more money.3 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »I already called him an idiot but id like to point out maybe a question,
Anyone have thoughts on why they think trainers dont make it a priority to properly research nutrition before handing out broscience? Like seriously if it was my job to make someone fit and healthy id research all aspects. Wonder why its not part of their schooling. Even i know thats rediculous and iv done no schooling just basic research on what my body requires for my journey.
Way to common.
I think one potential contributing factor is the low barrier to entry to become a personal trainer and even within that there are varying degrees of thoroughness in the different training certification courses. Some can be completed in 1 weekend, others take several months, but generally speaking even the major ones have rather low entry requirements.
Another issue could possibly be the quality of what's being taught. I thought NASM was a bit hit or miss overall. Definitely enough things I disagreed with which caused me to not recertify.
Finally I would tend to think that most personal trainers don't follow what they were taught in a strict sense, and I can't say I blame them even though I don't agree with the end result at times. For example there were plenty of things I did differently than what I learned through NASM (for example, I don't like their program design philosophy at all) because I think I can do a better job using other methods.
It wouldn't surprise me if many trainers think this way and they use a combination of what they've learned through multiple sources (and perhaps personal experience) and try to apply that.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.0 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »I already called him an idiot but id like to point out maybe a question,
Anyone have thoughts on why they think trainers dont make it a priority to properly research nutrition before handing out broscience? Like seriously if it was my job to make someone fit and healthy id research all aspects. Wonder why its not part of their schooling. Even i know thats rediculous and iv done no schooling just basic research on what my body requires for my journey.
Way to common.
I have a cousin who is a personal trainer and we will argue and argue about nutrition. His argument is always, "I do this for a living and I have success with telling my clients low carb/no carb/carb timing (I can never remember which one he preaches) what are your credentials?"
"Science." Is always my reply.13 -
I've dealt with lots of trainers during my time in fitness. A lot of the one's that echo the same BS, usually had a few things in common: they worked out for a while before becoming a trainer (not like you HAVE to go to school for it) and just followed the broscience advice they learned from the gym.JaydedMiss wrote: »I already called him an idiot but id like to point out maybe a question,
Anyone have thoughts on why they think trainers dont make it a priority to properly research nutrition before handing out broscience? Like seriously if it was my job to make someone fit and healthy id research all aspects. Wonder why its not part of their schooling. Even i know thats rediculous and iv done no schooling just basic research on what my body requires for my journey.
Way to common.
They follow a lot of advice from muscle/fitness magazines.
They didn't take a class in actual nutrition.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
I've dealt with lots of trainers during my time in fitness. A lot of the one's that echo the same BS, usually had a few things in common: they worked out for a while before becoming a trainer (not like you HAVE to go to school for it) and just followed the broscience advice they learned from the gym.JaydedMiss wrote: »I already called him an idiot but id like to point out maybe a question,
Anyone have thoughts on why they think trainers dont make it a priority to properly research nutrition before handing out broscience? Like seriously if it was my job to make someone fit and healthy id research all aspects. Wonder why its not part of their schooling. Even i know thats rediculous and iv done no schooling just basic research on what my body requires for my journey.
Way to common.
They follow a lot of advice from muscle/fitness magazines.
They didn't take a class in actual nutrition.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
It's also relevant to note that a lot of brosciency things work, but not for the reasons people think they do - and while they work, they're certainly not essential and sometimes definitely not optimal. I guess you could call it doing the right things for the wrong reasons. Some people succeed in spite of what they do rather than because of what they do.
I've also noticed that a lot of highly respected, educated, experienced people in the fitness/nutrition field rarely speak in absolutes about much of anything. Context matters.9 -
No carbs til dinner, no sleep til Brooklyn. Them's the rules.18
-
You need carbs, have healthy ones thats all. Everything in moderation - except rapid sugars - that works for me
P0 -
It's possible that your trainer has he reasons for carb backloading. Dr. Layne Norton recently did a pretty good video on it.
https://youtu.be/LImFpkaEFxQ 3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »colors_fade wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »um... I'll go against the grain here...
NO carbs is pretty unreasonable, but what he probably means is to LIMIT carbs. The idea is to keep blood sugar levels steady for as long as possible then increase them before and during the workout. If you work out at night, that might be why he says to eat your carbs at night. Here is a pretty good article if you are interested - http://www.simplyshredded.com/layne-norton-the-most-effective-cutting-diet.html
This. (P.S. Nice link GauchoMark)
Regulating insulin levels to optimize fat burning is not "bro science".
Your trainer may not have explained the reasoning behind his logic because he's just trying to direct you in the most efficient manner possible. So it's up to you to engage him in a more detailed conversation as to the reasons why. Before determining if this guy is "stupid", as so many posters are ready to label him, I'd ask him for a reason why he wants you to do this and see if his reasons match up with science.
You want to lose fat, so you want to keep your insulin levels low for as long as possible during the day. Generally speaking, "carbs" are the main culprit for insulin levels to spike. This is a good thing after a workout (insulin release - read Gaucho's link), but not during the remainder of the day while you're trying to burn as much fat as possible by being in a caloric deficit.
That said, all carbs are not the same. It is the glycemic index of carbs that you want to pay attention to. The GI level of a carbohydrate tells you how fast it is digested. The higher the number, the faster it is digested, and the more likely to raise insulin levels. Higher insulin levels mean the fat-burning mode is shut off while the body preps for nutrient uptake.
What this means is that you don't have to cut out carbs until dinner if you wish to eat low-GI carbs during the day.
Ask your trainer if he is okay with you eating low-GI carbs during breakfast/lunch/snacks. If regulating insulin levels is the reason for his terse advice, he should be okay with this, and will likely laud you for doing some homework on the subject.
protein can also spike insulin as well.not to mention you can only burn so much fat at a time.
Even yet, protein "spikes" are nothing like carb spikes. That is why "spikes" is in quotes. GI doesn't make as much difference as a lot of people think either... you can do so much more to reduce the spike by just pairing the carbs with protein and fat.
Also, it is possible to increase how much fat you can burn at a time. That isn't unlimited, of course, but can increase quite significantly. Just have to become fat adapted, which won't happen if you load up on carbs (even low GI carbs) every evening.
hmm well I lost a lot of fat eating a lot of carbs,its all due to a calorie deficit.so you are basically telling me to go keto? low carb? because with my health issue low carb/keto is a no no.
You misunderstood. Nowhere did I say it is impossible to lose fat while eating carbs. What I said is that those of us who are fat adapted burn fat more quickly than people who are not fat adapted.
What that means is that I burn fat (both dietary and body fat) faster than most. I also eat a lot more fat than if I were dieting with the same calorie level and eating a lot of carbs. Of course if that were the case, I would then burn the glucose from carbs first and would not need to burn fat.
ETA: I'm curious what health issue you have where low carb is a problem. Would you mind sharing?
I've bolded the part you wrote that you apparently didn't write.
Yes, I said I burn fat faster than most. I do. That doesn't automatically mean I lose body fat faster than the someone not fat adapted under otherwise similar circumstances with more carb intake and less fat intake (same calories).
Don't confuse "burn" for "lose."
I also provided clarification:midwesterner85 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Are we confusing/conflating dietary fat with body fat here? Because when and how the body uses fats for energy as opposed to carbs is kind of irrelevant to body fat loss no? You're not magically "burning" more stored body fat just by virtue of not having eaten any carbs that meal.
Are you responding to me? My point about burning fat is that those of us who are fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than those who are not fat adapted. Of course that also means that the other person, who is physiologically the same otherwise, not fat adapted is going to utilize other energy sources instead (glucose, glycogen) at higher rates than the fat adapted person. In a long endurance competition (ultra-marathon, for example), that non fat adapted person is going to see a performance reduction if they don't fuel... usually with carbs. That's the whole point of GU packs for such athletes.... carbs for fuel because that is what they need. Fat adapted athletes will either eat fat or use body fat at a higher rate and can avoid the need for constant carb introduction.
For the fat adapted person who is not participating in an endurance competition, they still burn more fat (not necessarily body fat because it depends on if they recently consumed fat) than the non-fat adapted person in a similar circumstance. It isn't magic. It's just that a person who consumes carbs regularly and has excess glucose from recent carb consumption is going to use carbs for energy first. The fat adapted person who doesn't have excess glucose because they didn't recently consume carbs is going to use something else for energy first... the fat adapted person who recently at fat is using that.
Notice how I haven't said that any of this negates calories? It's a question of how those calories are used and when they are used based on which macros make those calories up, the ability (adaptation) of a person to use different energy sources (glucose, glycogen, protein, and fat - protein and fat potentially coming from diet and potentially coming from our body), and their energy needs (someone competing in an endurance competition vs. a daily desk job). My point was in response to:you can only burn so much fat at a time.
If you're burning more bodyfat but not losing more bodyfat it means you're also packing on more bodyfat. Is that what you're saying?4 -
JaydedMiss wrote: »I already called him an idiot but id like to point out maybe a question,
Anyone have thoughts on why they think trainers dont make it a priority to properly research nutrition before handing out broscience? Like seriously if it was my job to make someone fit and healthy id research all aspects. Wonder why its not part of their schooling. Even i know thats rediculous and iv done no schooling just basic research on what my body requires for my journey.
Way to common.
1. It takes committment (and a few $$), to get the actual license to legitimately give diet advice. A lot of trainers do not have that level of professional integrity.
2. To be honest, training (esp for a beginner) can be a pretty grueling job--there is barely time to keep up with exercise stuff, let alone learn a new profession. Many trainers lack even a basic academic foundation in exercise physiology--how are they going to learn nutritional science as well?
3. Because of the milieu they often come from (i.e. Competitive athletics or weight room bro-world) many trainers think they know it already. There is also a higher than average degree of narcissism, which makes it harder to say "I am not qualified to go into that"--not to mention (see #4) competitive pressure because all the other trainers ARE doing it.
4. Many clients EXPECT trainers to give them meal plans and diet advice. Many times I have seen comments on forums that complain that "I've been working with a trainer for two weeks and haven't gotten a meal plan yet". There is real market pressure on trainers to be a "one stop shop" for not just exercise, but overall health advice as well.
3 -
This has been fun.
Maybe he has just noticed that this plan is more effective for his clients because a lot of people tend to overeat high carb foods vs. high protein/high fat and limiting them to a shorter time is helpful?
If you ever come around again OP you might try a moderate version of this for yourself and see what happens? You aren't married to it or anything.
Generally for me starting the day with a protein/fat meal seems to equal less hunger the rest of the day. Not a bad thing.
And I sleep better if I have carbs before bed. Also not a bad thing.
Edit: Watched the video. Thanks psuLemon.
Nice biceps Layne. And, hey, we seem to agree so that's nice.2 -
Serious question here... how would one know that they even burn body fat faster than most? Is there a truly reliable method of testing this?7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions