Low Carb Diet

[Born Hunter 17,828]

Absolutely mate, without doubt it's good. By increasing activity you have created a calorie deficit as well as doing your body and health good. But had you let your appetite swell with the increased output and eaten more to compensate you would have got nowhere in terms of weight loss. That's why I say the most important thing is to monitor calorific intake, it's the only thing that matters for weight loss.

 

I would never put anybody off going to the gym, quite the opposite. But its very important people understand the simple mechanism behind weight loss so they can approach it effectively and as a consequence see guaranteed results. I really believe that because there is so much false information out there that many people just quit before even trying. The fad diets very often fail, the gym can be very intimidating for many as well as just completely unnatural for them. All of that is an indirect way of loosing weight and as such often fails, when people understand the simple fact of weight loss they usually piss it!

[iworkwhippets 12,752]

allways been a good eater, and allways shift whats put in front of me, suppose im one of the lucky ones, i can eat a spud more than a pig , and never put weight on, plus i keep active, up at 6ish and never in bed until about 1 am, 6 foot, just over 11 stone 34 waist, eh, ted lune has nowt on me, im off now my lady has a morrisons chunky steak pie in the oven , and im clempt

[Accip74 7,112]

What about folks metabolism's.......what do you think? Does it make a big difference? My family is quite split....me & my sister have always 'got away' with what we eat, not being particularly careful, but my mum & brother have always struggled with weight & generally seem to be on some sort of diet....

[Born Hunter 17,828]

What about folks metabolism's.......what do you think? Does it make a big difference? My family is quite split....me & my sister have always 'got away' with what we eat, not being particularly careful, but my mum & brother have always struggled with weight & generally seem to be on some sort of diet....

Every individual will have a maintenance calorific requirement, simply how many calories they need to maintain their current body. Everybody is composed different etc but I'm still learning about the specifics so wouldn't like to comment. Nonetheless we all have a calorie quota for maintenance, that's the same for everyone, and likewise everyone will respond the same by going over or under that. Nobody can eat to a calorie surplus and not gain weight. The inverse is obviously true too.

 

Imo, those that are said to be 'lucky' and able to 'get away with it', like me and you, simply have better general awareness of their diet instinctively. Responding to a short period of surplus by a short period of deficit, therfore averaging over the total period to be around maintenance.

[Gaz_1989 9,539]

Little and often is better than afew big meals. Like 7 small ones rather than a massive dinner and a massive tea.

Nonsense.

 

A calorie is a calorie.

 

Eating 100 x 20 calories = 2000 calories

 

Eating 1 x 2000 calories = 2000 calories

[noddy10 411]

No it's not your body digestsit quicker and dosnt store the excess as fat.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

Spot on gaz. The only difference really is tactical. Changing what your calories a made up from and how you split them into meals through the day can and does have a effect on suppressing hunger cravings, as well of course on how your body chooses to use the various nutrients.

 

Little and often seems to work for some but a few large meals will work for others and seems strangely to be avoided. I read something recently which im trying to recall; one thing to bear in mind is that when you have a snack it triggers the release of a hunger hormone to encourage you to eat your fill. This is only really suppressed by a full stomach which is a very good reason for full meals, over lots of snacks.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

No it's not your body digestsit quicker and dosnt store the excess as fat.

That's not true.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Born Hunter

[jetro 5,349]

Lost 2 stone 9 pounds since the first of January. I just cut out all the sugar and dairy out of my diet. Went on gluten free bread and just eat meat twice a week. Plenty of veg eggs and fish. Once you have a week done it's fairly easy after that.

atb j

[Waz 4,274]

thread now ruined....

[neems 2,406]

Spot on gaz. The only difference really is tactical. Changing what your calories a made up from and how you split them into meals through the day can and does have a effect on suppressing hunger cravings, as well of course on how your body chooses to use the various nutrients.

 

Little and often seems to work for some but a few large meals will work for others and seems strangely to be avoided. I read something recently which im trying to recall; one thing to bear in mind is that when you have a snack it triggers the release of a hunger hormone to encourage you to eat your fill. This is only really suppressed by a full stomach which is a very good reason for full meals, over lots of snacks.

 

 

you can only absorb so much of any nutrient in one sitting,whether that's protein,fat,vitamin D or water.

 

if you eat lots of small high protein low carb meals you will hopefully metabolise more protein than had you eaten it all at once.

 

tried and tested by athletes and bodybuilders who put this stuff into practice in the real world,regardless of what the pencil necked theorists suggest,if it ain't broke...

[Born Hunter 17,828]

 

Spot on gaz. The only difference really is tactical. Changing what your calories a made up from and how you split them into meals through the day can and does have a effect on suppressing hunger cravings, as well of course on how your body chooses to use the various nutrients.

Little and often seems to work for some but a few large meals will work for others and seems strangely to be avoided. I read something recently which im trying to recall; one thing to bear in mind is that when you have a snack it triggers the release of a hunger hormone to encourage you to eat your fill. This is only really suppressed by a full stomach which is a very good reason for full meals, over lots of snacks.

 

 

you can only absorb so much of any nutrient in one sitting,whether that's protein,fat,vitamin D or water.

 

if you eat lots of small high protein low carb meals you will hopefully metabolise more protein than had you eaten it all at once.

 

tried and tested by athletes and bodybuilders who put this stuff into practice in the real world,regardless of what the pencil necked theorists suggest,if it ain't broke...

The pencil necked theorists these days usually are athletes, LOL. What I am telling you IS used by athletes everyday, it's not just theory.

 

The human body is only capable of directing limited quantities of certain nutrients towards certain metabolic pathways but for all practical limits energy storage as lipids isn't one of them.

 

Talking about the body's limitations for directing amino acids into muscle protein synthesis is irrelevant when we're talking about fat storage and loss.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Born Hunter

[neems 2,406]

 

 

Spot on gaz. The only difference really is tactical. Changing what your calories a made up from and how you split them into meals through the day can and does have a effect on suppressing hunger cravings, as well of course on how your body chooses to use the various nutrients.

Little and often seems to work for some but a few large meals will work for others and seems strangely to be avoided. I read something recently which im trying to recall; one thing to bear in mind is that when you have a snack it triggers the release of a hunger hormone to encourage you to eat your fill. This is only really suppressed by a full stomach which is a very good reason for full meals, over lots of snacks.

 

you can only absorb so much of any nutrient in one sitting,whether that's protein,fat,vitamin D or water.

 

if you eat lots of small high protein low carb meals you will hopefully metabolise more protein than had you eaten it all at once.

 

tried and tested by athletes and bodybuilders who put this stuff into practice in the real world,regardless of what the pencil necked theorists suggest,if it ain't broke...

The pencil necked theorists these days usually are athletes, LOL. What I am telling you IS used by athletes everyday, it's not just theory.

 

The human body is only capable of directing limited quantities of certain nutrients towards certain metabolic pathways but for all practical limits energy storage as lipids isn't one of them.

 

 

Right.

 

but that doesn't mean we can make use of an entire days allowance of ANY nutrient if eaten in 1 sitting for example,that's why they're spread throughout the day.

 

if you want to actually absorb more protein,rather than just sh@t it out,you better spread the meals out,people trying to build muscle work out how much protein they can metabolise in one sitting lets say 30g and how long they need to wait before they can go again let's say 2 hours.

 

and I've never known an athlete or bodybuilder any level this didn't work for.

[Born Hunter 17,828]

Neems, you're completely changing the topic from fat loss to lean mass gains. I told you, the body does have certain limitations with certain metabolic pathways, protein catabolism into muscle protein synthesis being one of them, hence strength athletes splitting protein intake up to 30-40gm hits through the day. But the conversion of excess calorie dense nutrients into fat is, for realistic intake, not limited! You do not just shit out the excess in some magical way.

 

This IS used by serious athletes, they know this and most probably studied it in a masters degree.

[neems 2,406]

Neems, you're completely changing the topic from fat loss to lean mass gains. I told you, the body does have certain limitations with certain metabolic pathways, protein catabolism into muscle protein synthesis being one of them, hence strength athletes splitting protein intake up to 30-40gm hits through the day. But the conversion of excess calorie dense nutrients into fat is, for realistic intake, not limited! You do not just shit out the excess in some magical way.

 

This IS used by serious athletes, they know this and most probably studied it in a masters degree.

 

no.

you can just maintain muscle mass (maybe only to a degree) while dropping weight,in fact this is something anyone whether they're aims are for health,performance or vanity would definitely want to do.

 

you try taking your entire daily protein intake in one sitting then tell me you don't have a nice big dump within the next few hours

 

which gets back to the point we seem to have strayed from 2000 cals in 1 meal is not the same as 2000 cals spread out.