Post: #26

I used to follow a similar diet, and used it to successfully lose weight in the past. However, I got back into "carbs" (rice, potatoes, etc.) when I started lifting heavy weights and started counting macros. Do guys feel like they can effectively combine the two? I feel like I drag now, when I go very low carb.

Post: #27

(09-21-2014 05:44 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  I used to follow a similar diet, and used it to successfully lose weight in the past. However, I got back into "carbs" (rice, potatoes, etc.) when I started lifting heavy weights and started counting macros. Do guys feel like they can effectively combine the two? I feel like I drag now, when I go very low carb.

I am also interested in what other guys have to say about this question.

I think partly based on my exposure to some of the resistance starch ideas (including this thread: /thread-31408....ght=starch) , I have become more open to eating some carbs - however, I still remain concern to keep the carb quantity pretty low in my diet and I am in my late 40s and I tend to put on weight easily these days (as contrasted to even 10 years ago),

In recent times, I have been eating some of the carbs that you mentioned and the starches (maybe a serving every few days), yet I remain of the sense that we have to balance the resistance starch benefits with the potential weight gaining negatives of the carbs contained therein.

I will have to monitor a little more closely whether my energy level changes - because I seem to have similar levels of energy either way.. just that I tend to easily put on weight with increased carbs.

Post: #28

Feeling like a drag is what happens when your blood sugar is too low. Eating carbs doesn't make you fat, wrong macroes do.

All of my past expriences trying to avoid a macronutrient has led to a binge and it happens for the very reason - you're cutting out a MACROnutrient. Too low on fat - hormonal issues and decreased libido, too low on carbs - less energy.

It's the same thing over and over again. In the past, it was fatophobia, now it's carbophobia. As we all know nowadays, fat turned out to be a jolly fellow after all, with carbs it's the same.

Post: #29

(09-21-2014 06:37 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:  Feeling like a drag is what happens when your blood sugar is too low. Eating carbs doesn't make you fat, wrong macroes do.

All of my past expriences trying to avoid a macronutrient has led to a binge and it happens for the very reason - you're cutting out a MACROnutrient. Too low on fat - hormonal issues and decreased libido, too low on carbs - less energy.

It's the same thing over and over again. In the past, it was fatophobia, now it's carbophobia. As we all know nowadays, fat turned out to be a jolly fellow after all, with carbs it's the same.

What you are saying is very general and makes little sense to me because there seems to be several contradictory statements contained therein.

In essence, as you may know there are three macronutrients - Fats, proteins and carbs.

Surely, just talking generally about the macronutrients will probably NOT get us very far in our discussion because there are some devils in those details concerning the kinds of macros that you are eating in each of the categories, and whether they are processed or in a natural state.

It is true that humans can eat and live upon a large number and kinds of food, but they may NOT thrive on lower quality foods, and frequently diet is attributed to health outcomes... though of course it is NOT the only factor.. just as blood sugars is NOT the only factor regarding energy levels... though it could be important to understand.

If you are talking about trending phobias and hype that are in the mass-media, I believe here in RVF we attempt to take those kinds of matters into account and to weed through some of the bullshit and NOT just get caught into the various mainstream trends - yet, there is NO stopping that some RVF guys are going to be caught up in mainstream non-sense trends and even become confused by some of the misinformation that is propagated in the mainstream media... Some of this confusion causes debate and misunderstanding and differences of opinion, and I personally do NOT claim to be immunized from variations of such confusion based on misinformation.

So BilboSwagging - if you are attempting to lump our posts in this thread into criticisms of those flip-flopping mass media trends, then you are likely oversimplifying and maybe NOT even reading or engaging in the topic at hand in this thread... For example, from your post, I question whether you have read or even attempted to understand the OP and the contents of the thread, but if I am mistaken, then maybe you should attempt to discuss some of the specifics outlined within the OP or other specific assertions of the thread, rather than making broad and sweeping statements that seem to be merely obfuscating the subject matter and seeming to point fingers, when guys here are merely attempting to figure out what works for them and to share their experiences on the topic and effect of low carb high fat.

Post: #30

I got quite constipated on low carb. So have been mid to high recently. I would like to lower it a bit since I think I'm starting to get too high, and not losing weight. I don't eat much in general, but sometimes binge on carbs. The high carbs were great for heavy lifting.

Post: #31

(09-21-2014 07:29 AM)kbell Wrote:  I got quite constipated on low carb. So have been mid to high recently. I would like to lower it a bit since I think I'm starting to get too high, and not losing weight. I don't eat much in general, but sometimes binge on carbs. The high carbs were great for heavy lifting.

I believe that the phenomenon is called "Carb creep." It is easy to get carried away by adding and then your body craves more and more and more. A lot of times, you may be able to add more and better fats into your diet and that will help to minimize and probably eliminate carb cravings.. for example, eating bacon and eggs can be much more satiating than a bagel and orange juice.

Maybe you should mention some specifics of what kinds of carbs you are eating? and how frequently in the day? and maybe there are some other foods that you could eat that would stop you from snacking or binging because there may be ways that you can make sure that you are more or less satiated between meals.

Post: #32

Rice and potatoes. Corn is creeping in as well. Rice and potatoes (espeically sweet potatoes tend to be easy to control. I do need to add fats again, but they are hard to snack on when your busy at work.

Post: #33

(09-21-2014 08:41 AM)kbell Wrote:  Rice and potatoes. Corn is creeping in as well. Rice and potatoes (espeically sweet potatoes tend to be easy to control. I do need to add fats again, but they are hard to snack on when your busy at work.

If you are eating those rice and potatoes 2-3 times a day, try cutting back to every other day (or some other measured way of cutting back). I tend to be o.k. with a serving every few days... and I am NOT too calculating about it.. just broadly from time to time throwing a serving in..

Personally, I don't really crave them or believe that they are necessarily energy boosters, but I am thinking that those kinds of foods, every few days (like one serving) may be good for maintaining decent gut flora.

Bacon is a real good snack food (you can easily eat it cold for a few days after it had been cooked). I cook up three pounds of ends and pieces at a time and then eat it at-will over the next few days. I buy it at discount - usually between $5 to $6 for the 3 pounds.. Boiled eggs can be good snacks, too.. I am sure other guys have some other items.. like I may do coconut or avocado.. I am a bit careful on the nuts.. but a little here and there may be o.k.. I think the main thing is eating good meals so you neither feel the need to snack very much or to binge because you waited too long between eatings.

Post: #34

(09-21-2014 07:22 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 06:37 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:  Feeling like a drag is what happens when your blood sugar is too low. Eating carbs doesn't make you fat, wrong macroes do.

All of my past expriences trying to avoid a macronutrient has led to a binge and it happens for the very reason - you're cutting out a MACROnutrient. Too low on fat - hormonal issues and decreased libido, too low on carbs - less energy.

It's the same thing over and over again. In the past, it was fatophobia, now it's carbophobia. As we all know nowadays, fat turned out to be a jolly fellow after all, with carbs it's the same.

What you are saying is very general and makes little sense to me because there seems to be several contradictory statements contained therein.

In essence, as you may know there are three macronutrients - Fats, proteins and carbs.

Surely, just talking generally about the macronutrients will probably NOT get us very far in our discussion because there are some devils in those details concerning the kinds of macros that you are eating in each of the categories, and whether they are processed or in a natural state.

It is true that humans can eat and live upon a large number and kinds of food, but they may NOT thrive on lower quality foods, and frequently diet is attributed to health outcomes... though of course it is NOT the only factor.. just as blood sugars is NOT the only factor regarding energy levels... though it could be important to understand.

If you are talking about trending phobias and hype that are in the mass-media, I believe here in RVF we attempt to take those kinds of matters into account and to weed through some of the bullshit and NOT just get caught into the various mainstream trends - yet, there is NO stopping that some RVF guys are going to be caught up in mainstream non-sense trends and even become confused by some of the misinformation that is propagated in the mainstream media... Some of this confusion causes debate and misunderstanding and differences of opinion, and I personally do NOT claim to be immunized from variations of such confusion based on misinformation.

So BilboSwagging - if you are attempting to lump our posts in this thread into criticisms of those flip-flopping mass media trends, then you are likely oversimplifying and maybe NOT even reading or engaging in the topic at hand in this thread... For example, from your post, I question whether you have read or even attempted to understand the OP and the contents of the thread, but if I am mistaken, then maybe you should attempt to discuss some of the specifics outlined within the OP or other specific assertions of the thread, rather than making broad and sweeping statements that seem to be merely obfuscating the subject matter and seeming to point fingers, when guys here are merely attempting to figure out what works for them and to share their experiences on the topic and effect of low carb high fat.

As I can understand, in this thread we're sharing experiences and giving advice to the average dude who wants to cut his weight and improve his health - in this case, calorie restriction is necessary, not carb restriction. At the end of the day, all kinds of diets have worked and they have only one thing in common - calorie restriction.

My own experience has shown that low carb is definitely a good tool in certain situations, but staying in constant ketosis - for a fit guy such as myself - is both very hard, pointless and hard on the wallet. The health marker benefits are most likely due to lower body fat percentage, not due to eating less carbs.

My point is that ultimately a calorie is a calorie. This however doesn't mean that you shouldn't develop good eating habits. If the goal is weight loss, then your main priority is staying below maintenance calories. Once this is done, you can start play around with macros. A big thing many people don't think about when it comes to food is satiety. This is where the ''magic'' of low-carb diets is at. By putting an emphasis on whole foods and protein, it's harder to go overboard with your calories. It's not so much about restricting carbs, it's about restricting foods that are calorie-dense. If you know what the macroes of the foods you're eating are, and you have a good enough control of your hunger, you're free to eat all the stuff you want as long as you stay below maintenance.

Post: #35

A couple questions/issues about this diet:

1) Do you do "cheat day" ? 1 day a week to eat anything you want and reset your metabolism?
2) Cheese and diary in general contain lactose, or sugar from milk. Avoid.
3) Do you guys know about "resistant starch" ? Its a part of starch converting into useful resistant starch. Hapens with potatoes and rice after cooked and cooled.

Post: #36

I don't have cheat days. Or I never plan to have. The food is so good so I don't crave anything else. If it anyway happens it's usually in form of a creamy perfectly poured up pint of Guinness. But now I'm off the booze so..

I should add that I don't exclude carbs anymore. But I only eat HQ carbs. No junk allowed in my kitchen. I drink 1 litre of fresh juice every day added to my meals which contains of food high of saturated fats and protein. Works fine, no blood sugar rush and no sweet cravings or anything like that.

I can also add that I'm 8-9kg leaner now than when I wrote the OP.
And I also doing some kind of workout or exercise every day if it's possible.

I'm right now suffering from a flu from hell, but after I get rid of it I'm going to hit the gym hard to bulk up with some muscles.

Let's see how I'll figure out my diet.
A lot of saturated fats and protein is still the core of my diet.

Post: #37

Bibloswaggins:

Thanks for the further elaboration. I can better see from where you are developing your ideas. I disagree with some of your main underlying assumptions, but at least you further explained regarding some of the ideas. Let me see if I can respond within the context of the points you are making.

(09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:  As I can understand, in this thread we're sharing experiences and giving advice to the average dude who wants to cut his weight and improve his health - in this case, calorie restriction is necessary, not carb restriction. At the end of the day, all kinds of diets have worked and they have only one thing in common - calorie restriction.

It is possible that OP is engaging in calorie restrictions in the whole scheme of things; however, he does NOT seem to be basing his plan on calorie restriction - but rather just changing the kinds of foods that he eats and restricting his intake of carb heavy foods and attempting to eat good fats.

To frame what OP is doing as calorie restriction, and to describe all successful diets as calorie restrictions, in my thinking is way to simplified and also seems to be buying into a mainstream dogma regarding calories. The Gary Taubes books that I mentioned earlier in this thread go through extensive analysis to debunk the myths about calories, and actually there are a lot of diets in the low carb world and the keto world and the paleo world that strive to de-emphasize the importance of calories by either talking about quality of foods or kinds of foods. Some of these other framings of diets completely shun the idea of restrictions and allow for people to eat as much as they want, so long as they are eating the correct kinds of foods. So your attempt to pigeon-hole those strategies into calorie restrictions seems to be both missing the point and inaccurate.

(09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:  My own experience has shown that low carb is definitely a good tool in certain situations, but staying in constant ketosis - for a fit guy such as myself - is both very hard, pointless and hard on the wallet. The health marker benefits are most likely due to lower body fat percentage, not due to eating less carbs.

Actually, I think that you may be correct that there have been studies to demonstrate that lower body fat and especially visceral fat has proven to show a very large correlation with improvement of a variety of biomarkers.. blood work improvement and other beneficial health outcome come about by merely lowering body fat percentages (and visceral fat levels).

You may also be correct that some of the better foods cost more money and I may add sometimes eating the better foods may cause more time for preparation or even locating good food sources... fuck... .. but in the end, it remains less clear whether going through these extra costs are really more expensive in the whole scheme of things... and that will likely vary from individual to individual. It may be much cheaper to engage in preventative medicine than to be stuck taking drugs and being hospitalized and suffering from various negative health effects - so arguments can be made regarding whether eating cheaply is really cheaper in the long run... I will concede though that in the short run and the narrow picture does seem to support your conclusion that guys will need to pay more money for higher quality foods.

(09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:  My point is that ultimately a calorie is a calorie.

That is a trite point if you are making it, and it is also incorrect because a calorie is NOT a calorie, and you seem to even negate this point when you talk about quality below....

For example the calories in a bag of chips and soda may be the same as the calories from a boiled egg and coconut juice; however, the egg and coconut juice are going to give much better nutrition to the body than the chips and soda - especially, if the guy's body is able to absorb the nutrients from the food. So if a guy is in the habit of drinking sodas and eating chips all day, his body may NOT be as capable as absorbing nutrients as the guy who is eating nutritious foods.

(09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:  This however doesn't mean that you shouldn't develop good eating habits. If the goal is weight loss, then your main priority is staying below maintenance calories. Once this is done, you can start play around with macros.

These do NOT need to be accomplished in the order that you are stating. That is a weird concept to suggest that you should restrict calories first? Makes little sense.

(09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:  A big thing many people don't think about when it comes to food is satiety. This is where the ''magic'' of low-carb diets is at. By putting an emphasis on whole foods and protein, it's harder to go overboard with your calories.

Guys in this thread are NOT neglecting to discuss satiety, and you are right that satiety is a good point, yet in your discussion above about satiety you are forgetting to talk about fats - which seems to be an emphasis of this thread.

Also, don't mix up low carb high fat with high protein concepts, becuse they seem to be different. A lot of the thinking in the low carb high fat thinking is to allow for adequate and good protein - but does NOT necessarily emphasize protein but instead seems to emphasize eating good fats for satiety and nutrition.. which seems to be part of OPs emphasis.

Actually, people could end up going overboard on protein, if they do NOT eat enough fats.

(09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:  It's not so much about restricting carbs, it's about restricting foods that are calorie-dense.

You seem to be devolving down the road of calorie density in some of the mainstream misconcpetions of foods.. that are real distractions because a lot of those mainstream ideas that emphasize calorie density direct people away from fats because fats have more calories per gram than either protein or carbohydrates. A large majority of the low carb high fat followers do NOT get into those kinds of quagmires regarding calorie density conceptions because they do NOT tend to restrict good quality fats or to engage in portion controls on the good quality fats, even though they may end up restricting in other manners. Now the more sophisticated of the LCHF movement will recognize the differences between fats and will stay away from various industrial oils and fats (such as partially hydrogenated oils, soybean oil, canola oil, vegetable oils, margerines, transfats) and pile on the good oils/fats (coconut oil, tallow, lard, butter, raw high fat dairy).

(09-21-2014 11:44 AM)Bilboswaggins Wrote:  If you know what the macroes of the foods you're eating are, and you have a good enough control of your hunger, you're free to eat all the stuff you want as long as you stay below maintenance.

Again, you are framing this point in terms of calorie restrictions.. which again seems to divert and distract from the main points.

Post: #38

(09-21-2014 12:09 PM)GauchoNomade Wrote:  A couple questions/issues about this diet:

1) Do you do "cheat day" ? 1 day a week to eat anything you want and reset your metabolism?
2) Cheese and diary in general contain lactose, or sugar from milk. Avoid.
3) Do you guys know about "resistant starch" ? Its a part of starch converting into useful resistant starch. Hapens with potatoes and rice after cooked and cooled.

I will attempt to take a crack at these.. what the heck...

1) I tend to believe that there is NO real need to build in cheat days; however, I am NOT opposed to the concept of having flexibility in order that guys can deviate and even considerably deviate on various days and on special occasions. If you are eating with some balance, then you do NOT need to build in cheat days for any kind of purported purpose to "reset your metabolism" because your overall approach should NOT need resetting. I kind of subscribe to a form of 80/20 rule - to attempt at least 80% compliance, and probably, i have a higher rate that is around 90%... so maybe it is 90/10.. compliance.. or at least somewhere between 80 and 90.

2) I am kind of pissed off about dairy in the sense that we have so much processed dairy in the USA. I understand your point about the sugars, but likely more of the problems with dairy come from the homogenization, pasteurization and removal of fats. Some guys have talked about caseins too, but I do NOT claim to be any expert on that. El Borracho made a good post on this in the dairy thread. I eat some dairy .. attempting high fat, when I do.

3) In my above post, I mentioned the resistance starch thread.

Post: #39

There are many, many examples of this:

8 week cut - The KFC Diet + Cinnamon Toast Crunch
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread...=136039781

Ask any bodybuilder how they gain weight. The answer is ... they eat more calories. Now, let's follow simple logic here, if eating more food makes you gain weight, guess what happens when you eat less food?

Or let's approach this a different angle:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2...549931.htm

A man weighing 207 kg went an entire year on zero food, medically supervised. He lost 125 kg. Why do I bring this up? Because it's entirely about creating a negative energy balance. Nobody can defy the laws of physics. Nobody. And especially not with any dietary tricks. Every single diet works. Every single exercise routine works. The reason every single diet works is because they put in a negative energy balance. Being consistent is what matters.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08...professor/
Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds

http://www.today.com/health/man-loses-56...2D79329158
Man loses 56 pounds after eating only McDonald's for six months

http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/
Joe Cross loses 100+ lbs and Phil Staples loses 200+ lbs, and both were on an incredibly high carb diet, initially just drinking fresh-squeezed fruit and vegetable juices. If carbs make you fat, Joe and Phil (and the plethora of people who have done juice fasts) should have ballooned in weight, right? But they didn't. Instead, they lose weight like crazy. Why?

I really could go on and on and on with plenty of examples of this.

Post: #40

(09-21-2014 05:18 PM)SteveCR Wrote:  There are many, many examples of this:

8 week cut - The KFC Diet + Cinnamon Toast Crunch
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread...=136039781

Ask any bodybuilder how they gain weight. The answer is ... they eat more calories. Now, let's follow simple logic here, if eating more food makes you gain weight, guess what happens when you eat less food?

Or let's approach this a different angle:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2...549931.htm

A man weighing 207 kg went an entire year on zero food, medically supervised. He lost 125 kg. Why do I bring this up? Because it's entirely about creating a negative energy balance. Nobody can defy the laws of physics. Nobody. And especially not with any dietary tricks. Every single diet works. Every single exercise routine works. The reason every single diet works is because they put in a negative energy balance. Being consistent is what matters.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08...professor/
Twinkie diet helps nutrition professor lose 27 pounds

http://www.today.com/health/man-loses-56...2D79329158
Man loses 56 pounds after eating only McDonald's for six months

http://www.fatsickandnearlydead.com/
Joe Cross loses 100+ lbs and Phil Staples loses 200+ lbs, and both were on an incredibly high carb diet, initially just drinking fresh-squeezed fruit and vegetable juices. If carbs make you fat, Joe and Phil (and the plethora of people who have done juice fasts) should have ballooned in weight, right? But they didn't. Instead, they lose weight like crazy. Why?

I really could go on and on and on with plenty of examples of this.

Yes, we know that you are also on this calorie is a calorie kick, too.

No one is saying that quantity of food does NOT matter, and NO one is saying that you cannot cut weight by starving yourself, and no one is saying that you would NOT gain weight if you pig out on eating food.

You seem to be distracting with these examples to attempt to argue that calories is the proper framework. Maybe you could start a calories matter thread rather than attempting to muddy the waters by coming into the keto threads, and the low carb threads and the paleo threads with your conventional knowledge "evidence?"

Have you read Gary Taubes yet? Probably, it would NOT matter to you anyhow because you are caught up on this supposed calorie is a calorie framework in your thinking and your continued striving to distract and divert various threads with that framing... which seems to be bordering on a form of trolling to come into various threads and to impose your contrarian framework.

On the potentially positive side, have you started your own thread on this calorie is a calorie topic yet? or maybe the blue zone ideas? or whatever your other beliefs, maybe lipo/cholesterol hypothesis? You may be able to see how many responses you get in a thread or threads covering those framings? I bet such thread(s) has the potential to be an interesting springboard for those willing to participate in such framing discussions.. and maybe some RVF guys will be o.k. with that.. and maybe even we will all be surprised and you will convert us all over to your way of thinking that seems to be in line with mainstream calorie is a calorie thinking?

Post: #41

I have read 2 of Taubes' books. I have also read plenty of peer-reviewed studies. I give many examples of people who have done what I posit, and yet you discount them. Why?

People seem to want to think that health/fitness/body composition is difficult. It's incredible simple. Painstakingly so. No matter how many times I say those magic 4 little words (eat less, move more), people will ALWAYS discount them and try to make fitness more difficult than it is.

Post: #42

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/art...ailer.html
50 Cent goes on an all-liquid diet to lose weight in 2 months for a movie role.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEY59GltVjw
Matthew McConaughey did a TV interview that explains how he lost so much weight so fast for a movie role. Go to about 1:50, and he clearly says he's found out it's about how much or how little he eats.

Hollywood actors know the best/fastest way to adapt their bodies as quickly as they can. IIFYM (if it fits your macros) is all the rage right now in the bodybuilding community - and it works amazingly well. Get your set number of protein and fat per day, and fill in the rest of your calories with whatever macronutrients you want.

Okay, so if ketosis or low-carb (or any other diet) was truly the optimal way, wouldn't that be the industry standard way of losing weight amongst Hollywood actors, bodybuilders, and fitness professionals? I mean, this people's lives depend on the way they look.

Post: #43

(09-21-2014 05:45 PM)SteveCR Wrote:  I have read 2 of Taubes' books. I have also read plenty of peer-reviewed studies. I give many examples of people who have done what I posit, and yet you discount them. Why?

People seem to want to think that health/fitness/body composition is difficult. It's incredible simple. Painstakingly so. No matter how many times I say those magic 4 little words (eat less, move more), people will ALWAYS discount them and try to make fitness more difficult than it is.

Those are two of the simplistic mainstream mantras that are easy to tout (and they are NOT your ideas or original and NOT even backed by science) and a lot of people believe those two mantras to be true because they are touted so much by mainstream dogma, medicine, food suppliers, FDA, etc. Gary Taubes spent a lot of both of his books to demonstrate science as to why they are NOT true and to show how much efforts mainstream dogma goes through to get us to buy into those frameworks.

You are NOT really adding anything to the discussion of this thread by coming in with those mantras and continuing to insist on them.. like you have done multiple times in other threads.. to distract and to attempt to get guys in the thread to consider that framework.. These paleo, low carb, keto threads are attempting to give guys other frameworks to consider and you are continuing to come back with distractions and diversions and to attempt to get us to defend against mainstream dogma.

You still have NOT answered why you do NOT start a new thread instead of striving to derail and distract these paleo, low carb, keto threads with your supposed wisdom and benevolence and simplicity?

Post: #44

(09-21-2014 06:10 PM)SteveCR Wrote:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/art...ailer.html
50 Cent goes on an all-liquid diet to lose weight in 2 months for a movie role.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEY59GltVjw
Matthew McConaughey did a TV interview that explains how he lost so much weight so fast for a movie role. Go to about 1:50, and he clearly says he's found out it's about how much or how little he eats.

Hollywood actors know the best/fastest way to adapt their bodies as quickly as they can. IIFYM (if it fits your macros) is all the rage right now in the bodybuilding community - and it works amazingly well. Get your set number of protein and fat per day, and fill in the rest of your calories with whatever macronutrients you want.

Okay, so if ketosis or low-carb (or any other diet) was truly the optimal way, wouldn't that be the industry standard way of losing weight amongst Hollywood actors, bodybuilders, and fitness professionals? I mean, this people's lives depend on the way they look.

These examples do NOT matter, and NO one is disputing that you can lose weight with calorie restrictions or that you can take short term measures for movies.

We are talking about lifetime changes for guys to be able to incorporate rather than various flash diets...

Also, you likely should realize by now that there is a lot of money vested in selling crappy food, prescribing medicine etc.. NO one can sell sunshine or whole natural foods because there is NOT much profits to be made, but if you create various imitation "health" foods, then you can substitute a lot of cheap ingredients and suggest that they are healthy. Should not be a mystery that there is a lot of money and vested interest in providing misinformation to people regarding diet and healthful living.

Post: #45

(09-21-2014 06:28 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Also, you likely should realize by now that there is a lot of money vested in selling crappy food, prescribing medicine etc.. NO one can sell sunshine or whole natural foods because there is NOT much profits to be made, but if you create various imitation "health" foods, then you can substitute a lot of cheap ingredients and suggest that they are healthy. Should not be a mystery that there is a lot of money and vested interest in providing misinformation to people regarding diet and healthful living.

This is actually my entire point of making the posts that I do. What does Taubes gain out of telling you his version of his diet? Who/what is behind all of these diets? Money. There's no money to be made in telling people to eat less and move more.

Post: #46

As to why I won't open a thread regarding CICO, it's an exercise in futility. There are 2 clearly divided camps - those that believe in CICO and those that do not. It's become religious at this point.

Post: #47

(09-21-2014 07:07 PM)SteveCR Wrote:  

(09-21-2014 06:28 PM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  Also, you likely should realize by now that there is a lot of money vested in selling crappy food, prescribing medicine etc.. NO one can sell sunshine or whole natural foods because there is NOT much profits to be made, but if you create various imitation "health" foods, then you can substitute a lot of cheap ingredients and suggest that they are healthy. Should not be a mystery that there is a lot of money and vested interest in providing misinformation to people regarding diet and healthful living.

This is actually my entire point of making the posts that I do. What does Taubes gain out of telling you his version of his diet? Who/what is behind all of these diets? Money. There's no money to be made in telling people to eat less and move more.

So, now you are striving to turn around the idea in order to suggest that the money corruption is with Gary Taubes and ilk and paleo and low carb and keto...

sure there is money in everything, but you seem to be both dodging the point about the overwhelming power and dominance of mainstream ideas... and mainstream influence that you are touting. ... that is where the money is... You seem a bit disingenuous in trying to turn around that argument to make those similar claims against the smaller actors that are striving to communicate against those mainstream messages that you are also touting here.. while you are trying to appear as if you are benevolent and that you have our best interests at heart...

Where is that thread that you can spout these various ideas that you supposedly have? You seem to have enough ideas that you are claiming will save the day, and accordingly you should be able to construct a thought provoking thread that contains those supposedly innovative and simplistic ideas, rather than muddying up, distracting and diverting in these other threads that are attempt to communicate various non-mainstream ideas.

Post: #48

(09-21-2014 07:10 PM)SteveCR Wrote:  As to why I won't open a thread regarding CICO, it's an exercise in futility. There are 2 clearly divided camps - those that believe in CICO and those that do not. It's become religious at this point.

I have NO idea what is CICO... but it seems that you are suggesting that I would be one of the believers in such..

I don't think that anyone here is stuck on religious fervor, to the extent that you are suggesting it, we are merely here attempting to talk about ideas related to low carb high fat diets.. in which you seem to be striving to get us off of the topic, and maybe turning the discussion into some kind of battle over concepts that do NOT need to take place in this thread.


Apparently, you already stated your case that you do NOT believe in low carb and you believe the solution is to eat less and to exercise more and a calorie is a calorie and whatever.. and since you said it, good bye.. or like I already mentioned.. maybe another thread to explore those divergent topics that take us away from the thrust and the nuances of the thread that deviate from your "simple" model (that is, more or less, parroting mainstream propaganda).

Post: #49

Have you considered the addition of carb cycling or a cheat day?
Never tried it personally, but I've heard in a few places that when on a low or no carb diet, picking a day or two a week to cheat and carb up results in faster and more extreme fat loss, and more efficient glycogen function (very important if you're lifting).

Post: #50

(09-21-2014 06:10 PM)SteveCR Wrote:  Okay, so if ketosis or low-carb (or any other diet) was truly the optimal way, wouldn't that be the industry standard way of losing weight amongst Hollywood actors, bodybuilders, and fitness professionals? I mean, this people's lives depend on the way they look.

It is the industry standard of losing weight among bodybuilders and fitness professionals, linking to a few weird outliers doesn't change that.

As far as celebrities... You realize they can afford specialist doctors, steroids, and stimulants, right? They're not going to mention that part of the equation on The View when asked to tell an anecdote about how they lost weight for a role.