No carb diet - anybody doing it?

Quote from hapaboy:

If so, how's it working out?
More...
The SECRET:

3500 calories = 1 lb,
count your intake of calories, start from 1500 calories / day,
weigh yourself every day, and adjust accordingly.
Workout with dumbbells 10min, and walk 20min five to seven days a week.

It works for everyone! :)

That's for weight loss ... You should also learn to eat healthy, and forget about stupid gimmicks (e.g. no carb diets). :)
 
hap, I've done the 'low carb' thing by cutting out all bread, pasta, rice and other bread products. So many people will tell you that it's unhealthy to eat 900-1200 calories a day. It's a load of horseshit. You can take in very focused calories, eat 4-5 times a day, and lose weight quickly and safely. Very high quality Omega 3 fish oil supplement is a must for those healthy fats you need. I use Ascenta Nutrasea. Lots of water, which becomes a real hassle since you're always looking for a washroom. First thing in the morning, 2 big glasses of water and a small amount of oatmeal, and that's it. Fresh vegetables - as much as you want. Dip them in ultra-low cal dressing if you want. Protein is easy to get in.

The more exercise you can do, the better. Cardio is good to do bulk reductions in net caloric intake, but weights will pay off huge for you if you can do even a small amount every second day. You are not looking to make yourself into a bodybuilder, just to get the muscle torn and get your body burning calories while it works to repair that tissue.

If you have a sweet tooth or like to drink carbonated soda with your meals, make your own pop with Stevia and natural extracts.

Most people can't follow this because they don't have the discipline to do it. I assure you , if you follow this type of regimen you can lose as much weight as you want.
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

Loosing weight is about CALORIES not carbs :D
More...
The nature of the carbs can have an impact. If I'm not mistaken (again), starchy carbs can cause you to retain water and also screw with the pancreas, which can cause weight gain, all else being equal. And as everyone knows by now, carbs high on the glycemic index don't really do anyone any favors unless you're running for your life. Further, not getting enough protein and fat won't satiate very well, which can lead to overeating. So if any of what I just wrote is at all accurate, then losing weight can be about ("bad") carbs at least in part. (Of course, the calorie component is not to be dismissed, but that's not the specific topic of this thread.)
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

The nature of the carbs can have an impact. If I'm not mistaken (again), starchy carbs can cause you to retain water and also screw with the pancreas, which can cause weight gain, all else being equal. And as everyone knows by now, carbs high on the glycemic index don't really do anyone any favors unless you're running for your life. Further, not getting enough protein and fat won't satiate very well, which can lead to overeating. So if any of what I just wrote is at all accurate, then losing weight can be about ("bad") carbs at least in part. (Of course, the calorie component is not to be dismissed, but that's not the specific topic of this thread.)
More...

Good, bad carb definitions misleading, says review
Dividing carbohydrates into 'good' and 'bad' carbs is misleading, and cannot be used as a measurement to prevent overweight and obesity, according to a review of scientific literature on the contentious topic.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/view/print/28571

According to Gaesser, diets high in carbohydrates are almost universally associated with slimmer bodies.

:D
 
Quote from killthesunshine:

Good, bad carb definitions misleading, says review
Dividing carbohydrates into 'good' and 'bad' carbs is misleading, and cannot be used as a measurement to prevent overweight and obesity, according to a review of scientific literature on the contentious topic.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/content/view/print/28571

According to Gaesser, diets high in carbohydrates are almost universally associated with slimmer bodies.

:D
More...
Read the article carefully. Although the distinction of "good" and "bad" carbs can sometimes be confusing with the GI alone, there is a clear reference to higher quality carbs as compared to the alternative variety.

You should consider reading Andrew Weil's Healthy Aging. It is a bit of an eye-opener.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

Read the article carefully. Although the distinction of "good" and "bad" carbs can sometimes be confusing with the GI alone, there is a clear reference to higher quality carbs as compared to the alternative variety.

You should consider reading Andrew Weil's Healthy Aging. It is a bit of an eye-opener.
More...

"Even high-glycemic foods have a place in the diet, attributing that to the overall higher quality of a high-carb diet, which includes more fiber-rich and other nutritional foods"

I don't recognize Weil as an original researcher :D
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

You're intentionally being obtuse. This exchange is no longer interesting.
More...

No I it's not intentional I assure you LOL :D

what did i say..hahaha

ps Don't you find Andy a bit overweight? like about 30 lb? :D
 
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 85, No. 4, 1023-1030,
April 2007 © 2007 American Society for Nutrition

Long-term effects of 2 energy-restricted diets differing in glycemic
load on dietary adherence, body composition, and metabolism in
CALERIE: a 1-y randomized controlled trial1,2,3

Background:There remains no consensus about the optimal dietary
composition for sustained weight loss.

Objective:The objective was to examine the effects of 2 dietary
macronutrient patterns with different glycemic loads on adherence to a prescribed regimen of calorie restriction (CR), weight and fat
loss, and related variables.

Design:A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of diets with a high
glycemic load (HG) or a low glycemic load (LG) at 30% CR was
conducted in 34 healthy overweight adults with a mean (±SD) age of 35 ± 6 y and body mass index (kg/m2) of 27.6 ± 1.4. All food was provided for 6 mo in diets controlled for confounding variables, and subjects self-administered the plans for 6 additional months. Primary and secondary outcomes included energy intake measured by doubly labeled water, body weight and fatness, hunger, satiety, and resting metabolic rate.

Results:All groups consumed significantly less energy during CR than at baseline (P < 0.01), but changes in energy intake, body weight, body fat, and resting metabolic rate did not differ significantly between groups. Both groups ate more energy than provided (eg, 21% and 28% CR at 3 mo and 16% and 17% CR at 6 mo with HG and LG, respectively) . Percentage weight change at 12 mo was –8.04 ± 4.1% in the HG group and –7.81 ± 5.0% in the LG group. There was no effect of dietary composition on changes in hunger, satiety, or satisfaction with the amount and type of provided food during CR.

Conclusions: These findings provide more detailed evidence to suggest that diets differing substantially in glycemic load induce comparable long-term weight loss.



ITS ALL ABOUT THE CALORIES!!! NOT THE CARBS! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top