carbs!!!

[rackham]

Originally posted by skince55

Weight loss is also dependent upon the person. We all don't loose and gain weight with the same amount of ease and difficulty. If you can eat pizza and loose weight than great, good for you, but others cannot, regardless of how low their calories are. Weightloss is not as easy as you make it out to be for some people. As far as the carbs are bad "hype", my father lost a good amount of weight at the beginning of this summer by doing the Atkins diet for about a month, maybe a little longer. But regardless he started eating normal again and has kept the weight off. I really don't think he would have got the results he did by just limiting calories. Another thing about carbs and limiting calories is you have to take into consideration that not everyone weighs each bit of food they eat to determine how many calories are in them. You say you ate pizza. How many calories were in each slice??? How do you know that for sure?? You don't know how much of each ingredient the pizzeria puts in(assuming thats where you got the pizza), and last I checked pizzeria's don't have nutriotional guides telling you how many calories are in each slice. My point being is that it is very easy to unknowingly go over your maintence calorie range, so why not eat healthy foods(low carbs or low sat fats) to give yourself a little room to play with just in case you do eat something that is a little higher in calories than you thought. And also remeber serving sizes on the side of boxes are tiny compared to what we actually eat and many people don't realize that.

If your father had consumed fewer than his maintenance amount of calories, he would have lost weight. It's very simple -- if you're not consuming enough calories to meet your expenditures, your body is forced to burn itself to compensate.

I'm not recommending the people eat pizza -- that was definitely *not* the point of my post. I recommend that people primarily eat foods for which they *know* the calorie values for certain. That's the only way they can be sure they're not going over maintenance.

But anybody can eat pizza and still lose weight. You think a person could live on only a single slice of pizza a day and not lose weight? No way. It's an extreme example, but I think it proves my point quite nicely: if you don't eat enough food, you will lose weight. Period. That's why most people lose weight on Atkins. It's not the low carbs, it's the fact that by cutting out carbs, they've drastically cut their calorie intake.

[skince55]

Originally posted by rackham

You think a person could live on only a single slice of pizza a day and not lose weight? No way. It's an extreme example, but I think it proves my point quite nicely: if you don't eat enough food, you will lose weight.

But can a person eat one slice of pizza a day and be satisfied? No way(not me at leat). one of the points I was trying to make is that it's very easy to go over your target calories for the average dieter. I can never eat just one "serving" in terms of what the label calls a serving. I just think it's safer if your dieting to eat healthier foods and maintain a lower calorie count. I just don't think it's accurate to say anyone can loose weight and eat whatever they want as long as they keep their calories low

That's why most people lose weight on Atkins. It's not the low carbs, it's the fact that by cutting out carbs, they've drastically cut their calorie intake.

I agree with you totally here. People on the atkins are so limite on what they can eat that they are forced to eliminate calories

[rackham]

Originally posted by skince55

But can a person eat one slice of pizza a day and be satisfied? No way(not me at leat). one of the points I was trying to make is that it's very easy to go over your target calories for the average dieter. I can never eat just one "serving" in terms of what the label calls a serving. I just think it's safer if your dieting to eat healthier foods and maintain a lower calorie count. I just don't think it's accurate to say anyone can loose weight and eat whatever they want as long as they keep their calories low

I agree that if a person is eating things like pizza, etc. they have to be very careful to monitor their calories. I was very strict with myself -- I wrote down every calorie I ate every day except weekends.

(In fact, I still do that now that I'm bulking, to make sure I'm getting enough calories to gain from.)

I agree with you totally here. People on the atkins are so limite on what they can eat that they are forced to eliminate calories

Exactly.

[wideskies]

at first it's difficult, but i think that once people get into a habit of eating a healthy, balanced diet with enough protein and fat, it becomes easier to curb food cravings because moderating your calories by eating regularly thoughout the day enables you to avoid feeling hungry.

people who avoid fat like the plague and stuff themselves with carbs, which don't provide the same satisfaction/"long burn" that protein/fat does, just end up feeling hungry an hour after they eat. so they snack some more, on more carbs of course, and end up way over their calorie limits at the end of the day.

i think Atkins is bearable for some people because you end up eating lots of high-protein, high-fat foods that keep you feeling full for longer... even though you're consuming less calories overall.

[elitesnautica]

"But only if they are consuming a correct amount of calories. Carb depletion doesn't mean shit if you just end up getting your calories from other sources."

This is one of the few times that I absolutely disagree with you.

I have been on diet (just to test it) and also helped many people with diets that take in almost 500 to 600 grams of protein per day and probably 200 grams of fats (cis-unsaturated, of course) and zero carbs for 3 or 4 days and then carb load with both high and low glycemic carbs on a rest day.

This diet consist of many more maintaince calories than needed, but due to the body relying on fat for energy and protein for building - you can loose "fat" tons of fat and even put on some muscle.

This is a trick that some body builders are using along with insulin and it works.

I am not recommending this diet to anyone on this forum - I only reference it to prove that calorie intake is not always the sole determinant when it comes to loosing weight.

People are different - but the vast majority of people would be much better off it "high glycemic" carbs were left along.

Now, back to my pepsi.

Nautica

[elitesnautica]

One other thing, And I am NOT advocating the Atkins diet, it puts to many ketones or acids in the body, which over the long haul is not good. Also, it does not take into consideration nutritional needs such as vitamins and minerals.

But the principle of the atkins diet - if strickly done, does not neccessarily mean cutting calories. What it does is switch the bodies energy source.

All metabolic process need glucose molecules in order to form ATP, which is the actual energy source used by animals. Obvisouly since glucose is what is needed, the bodies first source of energy would be from sugars or glucose molecules, which can also be stored as glycogen in the muscles and liver.

When the body is starved of glucose, it has to get energy from other sources. Here comes in the muscles (protein) and adispose tissue (fat). So in the atkins diet we take in plenty of protein so that muscle wasting does not occur and and adequate amount of (cis-unsaturated fatty acids) to keep the body in the mode of using fat for energy. At this time it not only uses dietary fat but also fat that is stored in our body.

What this does essentially is raises our "maintance" leves b/c the process of coverting to glucose actually requires energy itself. Therefore more calories can be taken in and weight still be lost. And the reason I say CIS-fatty acids - is that these types can actually help rid the body of fat - saturated and trans-fats form solids very easily and are too easily stored as fat and also clog arteries.

Where this diet fails is when a person eats say a peace of gum or one cookie, any type of sugar will kick the body out of ketosis and keep the body from forming ketones (a by product of using fat for energy) and so if a person does this and eats more than maintance calories wieght loss will not occur.

nautica

[rackham]

Originally posted by elitesnautica

What this does essentially is raises our "maintance" leves b/c the process of coverting to glucose actually requires energy itself. Therefore more calories can be taken in and weight still be lost.

Re-read what you just wrote. You are in effect agreeing that a person has to eat below maintenance in order to lose weight.

If you're eating a no/low-carb diet, then your maintenance requirements may be much higher (due to glucose production, etc), but you still can't pass them and expect to lose weight.

If you're eating a "normal" diet, you can just count your calories based on the standard 12xbodyweight rule.

I prefer the second method because low-carb diets like Atkins are 1) hard to follow and 2) tend to encourage people to lose lots of weight quickly, which is not only unhealthy but also ineffective in the long term (people have a much higher tendency to gain the weight back).

Anyway, whatever floats your boat. But why complicate your life with low-carb if all you have to do is count your calories?

[elitesnautica]

Well, yes it does raise your maintance level, which is good. But you can still eat more than that maintanence level, so long as you are in ketosis.

Basically, what this says is that if you eat "low" carbs - you must watch your calorie intake.

But if you eat "zero" carbs - you can go way over.

And yes I know that it is almost impossible to eat zero carbs - but so long as you keep it to 2 or 3 grams and 0 sugars - it will work.

Nautica

[rackham]

Originally posted by elitesnautica

Well, yes it does raise your maintance level, which is good. But you can still eat more than that maintanence level, so long as you are in ketosis.

If you eat more than maintenance, then you are BY DEFINITION gaining weight. That's what "maintenance" means.

But yet again... why go to the trouble of eating a low/no-carb diet when you can lose weight just fine (and safely) just by counting calories???

[wideskies]

i definitely don't have the money/willpower/organization/easy access to kitchen to eat a very low carb diet.

ick.

*munches poptart* ;]

[elitesnautica]

Originally posted by rackham

If you eat more than maintenance, then you are BY DEFINITION gaining weight. That's what "maintenance" means.

But yet again... why go to the trouble of eating a low/no-carb diet when you can lose weight just fine (and safely) just by counting calories???

Exactly, but if you are gaining lean muscle mass and loosing fat - you are still accomplishing your goals. That is why it is so hard to use "Old School" lessons when trying to teach people new tricks.

And as far as safety issues goes - Zero carbs causes ketosis, which is not healthy.

Low carbs is the absolute healthiest way a persona can eat.

Vegatables

lean meats

cis unsaturated fats

and fruits for snacks.

Nautica

[rackham]

I don't understand... what do you think is "Old School"?

[phuturephunk]

Originally posted by rackham

I don't understand... what do you think is "Old School"?

...Three large meals a day instead of spreading out smaller meals and the insane Dietary requirements for carbs on a daily basis ( I remember it being somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-600 grams A DAY back in the 80's if I'm not mistaken)...just to name two off the top of my head..

...Also, speaking from first hand knowledge, one can lose a great deal of weight by not eating carbs AT ALL and not watching calories. When I was on the Atkins diet several years ago I was probably clocking over 3000 calories for the day after everything was said and done and I still lost weight...keep in mind all that protien came from some pretty standard issue 'bad' sources like bacon and eggs for example...Exercize was minimal during the same period of time...

...Counting calories has never worked for me...I've had to drastically change the fuel that I was intaking in order to lose weight effectively..

[rackham]

Originally posted by phuturephunk

...Three large meals a day instead of spreading out smaller meals and the insane Dietary requirements for carbs on a daily basis ( I remember it being somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-600 grams A DAY back in the 80's if I'm not mistaken)...just to name two off the top of my head..

But I'm not advocating 3 meals a day. I eat 6 a day. Yet elitesnautica seems to think that I'm giving "Old School" advice...

...Also, speaking from first hand knowledge, one can lose a great deal of weight by not eating carbs AT ALL and not watching calories. When I was on the Atkins diet several years ago I was probably clocking over 3000 calories for the day after everything was said and done and I still lost weight...keep in mind all that protien came from some pretty standard issue 'bad' sources like bacon and eggs for example...Exercize was minimal during the same period of time...

3000 calories is approximate maintenance for somebody who weighs 200 pounds. If you weighed more than 200 pounds, you were eating below maintenance.

...Counting calories has never worked for me...I've had to drastically change the fuel that I was intaking in order to lose weight effectively..

See previous point.

[elitesnautica]

Originally posted by rackham

I don't understand... what do you think is "Old School"?

"Old School" = Low fat and whatever kind of carbs you want. This was the old way of teaching/learning. They thought that as long as you kept the fat out (all fat) that you could loose weight.

And I am not referring to you - just in general most nutritionist who went to school 10 to 15 years ago do not understand low carb diets.

They usually do not understand the difference between saturated and unsaturated. And most importantly the difference between CIS fatty acids and TRANS fatty acids.

Old school works but to be a true nutritionist - they must understand that different people need different diets and they must keep an OPEN MIND until it can be proven otherwise.

Nautica

[elitesnautica]

Originally posted by phuturephunk

...Three large meals a day instead of spreading out smaller meals and the insane Dietary requirements for carbs on a daily basis ( I remember it being somewhere in the neighborhood of 500-600 grams A DAY back in the 80's if I'm not mistaken)...just to name two off the top of my head..

...Also, speaking from first hand knowledge, one can lose a great deal of weight by not eating carbs AT ALL and not watching calories. When I was on the Atkins diet several years ago I was probably clocking over 3000 calories for the day after everything was said and done and I still lost weight...keep in mind all that protien came from some pretty standard issue 'bad' sources like bacon and eggs for example...Exercize was minimal during the same period of time...

...Counting calories has never worked for me...I've had to drastically change the fuel that I was intaking in order to lose weight effectively..

I didn't even read this - but this is a perfect example of old school

Nautica

[phuturephunk]

Originally posted by rackham

3000 calories is approximate maintenance for somebody who weighs 200 pounds. If you weighed more than 200 pounds, you were eating below maintenance.

See previous point.

...With my metabolisms natural state and the lack of lean muscle mass I had at the time I can assure you I was taking in more calories than I needed to sustain myself...

[rackham]

Originally posted by phuturephunk

...With my metabolisms natural state and the lack of lean muscle mass I had at the time I can assure you I was taking in more calories than I needed to sustain myself...

Estimations of maintenance calories are based on total bodyweight. The low-end estimation for a person with high bodyfat and a sedentary lifestyle is approximately:

11x bodyweight (for a man; it would be 10 for a woman)

x 1.15 (for a sedentary lifestyle)

x 1.10 (for the thermic effect of feeding)

= approximately 14x bodyweight.

Therefore, if you weighed 200lbs (I have no idea how much you weighed), your maintenance calories would be 2800 calories, which isn't far off from the back-of-the-envelope 15x bodyweight calculation that I gave earlier.

You say you tried counting calories before and it didn't work. What system did you use?

[daillestmattyg]

I'm trying to gain weight but im 17 so in being young i have a fast metabolism and what you just wrote confuses me alot i weight 140 i take in 220grams of protein a day how many calories as well as carbs should I be getting? thanks

matt

[elitesnautica]

Originally posted by daillestmattyg

I'm trying to gain weight but im 17 so in being young i have a fast metabolism and what you just wrote confuses me alot i weight 140 i take in 220grams of protein a day how many calories as well as carbs should I be getting? thanks

matt

If you are 17 with a fast metabolism - forget about numbers. Eat, eat, eat, eat, eat, eat, and continue to eat.

Just make sure you are getting at least 200 grams of protein and then take in as much food as you can.

If you start putting on more fat than you want - then cut back a little.

Nautica

[daillestmattyg]

i know to eat eat eat but i only wanna eat healthy so any good foods you could think of that will help me achieve this?

thanks again

matt

[elitesnautica]

It really depends on your goals.

Eating healthy is a good choice and the way to go - but (and I know, I will get flamed for this one) it is hard for someone your age to put on muscle mass and eat healthy.

Healthy foods just don't pack the meat on, like burgers, pizza and a protien shake for dessert.

nautica

[rackham]

Originally posted by elitesnautica

If you are 17 with a fast metabolism - forget about numbers. Eat, eat, eat, eat, eat, eat, and continue to eat.

Just make sure you are getting at least 200 grams of protein and then take in as much food as you can.

If you start putting on more fat than you want - then cut back a little.

Nautica

I agree, and I would just add that you should start out with at least 20x your bodyweight (if your metabolism is anything like mine was at that age), about 2800 calories. I say this only because people often think they're eating more than they really are, so keeping track of your calories for a while will ensure that you're not kidding yourself. Use that as a baseline and adjust as needed.