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

You are getting on everyones nerves

I actually find this discussion to be educational. As long as personal attacks aren't being made I don't see any harm in a discussion on science. Do you?

You are getting on everyones nerves

Honestly, that's what I call a cool story bro. Such a riveting tale, I honestly copy and pasted it to word, saved on my hard drive, backed it up on a jump drive, drove to the bank, put the jump drive in the safe deposit box, and will leave it there until my kids turn about 12 (when they can actually state their age, and ask what it is I'm showing them), when I will pick it up, put it in an old USB drive reader and relay this cool story to them and tell them, "kids, this is what a cool story should look and sound like...not like the stories your generation tells.




please respond.

You know......I was just thinking.....


You haven't started with the vegetarians yet. Why not pick on them?

You know......I was just thinking.....

You haven't started with the vegetarians yet. Why not pick on them?

You're going to feel sooooo awkwaaaaard when I tell you I'm vegetarian.

I'm not picking on you or people who do low carb; I am clearing up the misconception that it has a metabolic edge. Are you going to even try to refute anything I've said, or just keep telling me that I am annoying people and suggest I "pick on other groups."

Do you disagree that carbs are stored as glycogen, or...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlrtDQLV66s&feature=related from a Doctor who explains how the thyroid is affected by diet. "the problem with diagnosing low thyroid is that it's diagnosed with only one test... too many people fall between the cracks and are misdiagnosed." She recommends eating more iodide as the answer, and T3 medication. I ABSOLUTELY DON'T CONDONE HER "cure". This doctor is typical of most in America, trying to solve a symptom not the REASON for the symptom.

Doctors of nutrition and metabolisim have found that a slow metabolisim and malfunctioning thyroid is because of anemia in the body, and too much insulin! Too many carb. = insulin = storage of fat = starvation mode. Starvation mode = anemia and fat storage.

The Low calories, low fat diets cause a low (slow) metabolisim because they put the body into starvation mode! This can be healed NATURALLY, and is scientifically proven:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOJ3SiRj4AQ
Dr. Richard Johnson states tons of statistics as well as the danger of sugar in the blood caused by too much carb.s in the diet. By the 3:00 mark, he discusses the paleo (native american) diet and how it was the norm of eating for tribes in S. Am. that are now in horrible health due to the introduction of processed foods in the "western diet". He also mentions the Low Fat Myth and how it does not prevent cardiovascular disease! "...it's sugar that's driving cardiovascular disease, it's sugar that's driving poor health...."

,"...it is Sugar that is Driving Diabetes". sugar = carbs. hmmmm. "There was a study in Yemen of how immigrants...their caloric intake WENT DOWN, but their sugar [carbs] intake went up...and diabetes occured,..."

Funny, sugar is sugar (carbohydrate) in the body. hmmm. well, it's a start of a wealth of info. for your low carb. inquiry.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.