when does food become fat?

heartbreak_star

Lizling wrote: »

Which was it out of eating vegetables, exercising and not eating too much sugar that that you disagreed with, and why? I thought all those would be quite uncontroversial, even on an internet forum.

It's more that there's nothing in there about protein, all the emphasis is on calorie counting, even 1500 is still too low.

Just eating lots of vegetables and walking everywhere isn't going to make you fit and healthy, though it might make you slim

HBS x

pink_princess

heartbreak_star wrote: »

I like that site Gnolls.org is good too.

HBS x

Why have I never heard of that site before?

Thanks hb :j

Lizling

heartbreak_star wrote: »

It's more that there's nothing in there about protein, all the emphasis is on calorie counting, even 1500 is still too low.

Just eating lots of vegetables and walking everywhere isn't going to make you fit and healthy, though it might make you slim

HBS x

I didn't mention calorie counting except in response to the first question. In fact I deliberately avoided it because I've never yet known anyone to keep the excess weight off through that approach alone, unlike with eating clean or finding a form of exercise that they really enjoy, and IMHO it can lead to an unhealthy way of looking at food.

Of course, eating lots of protein is one perfectly good way to control appetite and keep weight down or to help build muscle that'll increase metabolism, but if you fill up on veg and walk everywhere and you WON'T be unhealthy (which is all I was saying).


The amount of protein that's adequate (as opposed to optimal) is very low: protein deficiency is extremely rare in the UK and from what I can see of the % protein in various vegetables it wouldn't actually be possible to become deficient in it even if you ate nothing but veg (not suggesting anyone does that).

Fire_Fox

notanewuser wrote: »

Do feel free to elaborate.

You said
"First you'll lose water, then muscle. Unless you exercise in which case you'll burn fat (provided you aren't overdoing the starches and sugar)."

We burn fat and carbohydrates doing any sort of activity: the body does not distinguish between basal metabolic rate, daily movement and formal exercise. The lower the intensity - sitting around, easy walking etc - the more fat is burned as a percentage of the total calories, the higher the intensity - exercise or a physical job - the more carbs are burned on a sort of 'sliding scale' because the body simply cannot convert fat to useable energy (glucose, a carb) fast enough. When doing stuff like high intensity interval training the vast majority of the calories burned are from carbs: you implied the opposite.

If there are no/ not enough carbs available the body will try to make them from protein or fat but that is inefficient so people tend to work at lower intensities than their capacity ('hitting the wall' is the acute version of this). We all do get more efficient at breaking down fat for energy with fitness but we don't stop needing or burning carbs.

When you diet only, yes initially you will lose the glycogen from the muscle and dehydrate somewhat particularly if you substantially restrict carbs. And yes some muscle loss is likely to occur in the absence of exercise, but you implied there is little to no fat loss! With the right weight management plan fat loss is maximised and muscle loss minimised.

daska

Fire_Fox wrote: »

You said
"First you'll lose water, then muscle. Unless you exercise in which case you'll burn fat (provided you aren't overdoing the starches and sugar)."

We burn fat and carbohydrates doing any sort of activity: the body does not distinguish between basal metabolic rate, daily movement and formal exercise. The lower the intensity - sitting around, easy walking etc - the more fat is burned as a percentage of the total calories, the higher the intensity - exercise or a physical job - the more carbs are burned on a sort of 'sliding scale' because the body simply cannot convert fat to useable energy (glucose, a carb) fast enough. When doing stuff like high intensity interval training the vast majority of the calories burned are from carbs: you implied the opposite.

If there are no/ not enough carbs available the body will try to make them from protein or fat but that is inefficient so people tend to work at lower intensities than their capacity ('hitting the wall' is the acute version of this). We all do get more efficient at breaking down fat for energy with fitness but we don't stop needing or burning carbs.

When you diet only, yes initially you will lose the glycogen from the muscle and dehydrate somewhat particularly if you substantially restrict carbs. And yes some muscle loss is likely to occur in the absence of exercise, but you implied there is little to no fat loss! With the right weight management plan fat loss is maximised and muscle loss minimised.

It's inefficient if you eat a high carb diet which makes you dependent on carb sources of energy. If you are keto-adapted the primary sources are lipid based and the body becomes efficient at using them instead.

Fire_Fox

daska wrote: »

It's inefficient if you eat a high carb diet which makes you dependent on carb sources of energy. If you are keto-adapted the primary sources are lipid based and the body becomes efficient at using them instead.

That is the very low carb mantra, not what the research proves nor what those of us who work in lifestyle healthcare/ physical activity see in the real world. I've seen many a very low carb site define high carb in a completely different way to how mainstream healthcare might define it, so you end up comparing apples with oranges.

More efficient not optimally efficient, same as with getting fitter through exercise makes you more efficient at burning fat for fuel: does not mean you need no carbs. In the absence of dietary carbs the body will produce them from protein or fat but that process is inefficient and slow. In commercial low carb diets for weight management that inefficiency is actually part of the attraction.

IME with clients on true low carb it means RPE is much higher for the same intensity. They also perform worse that the average Brit when you test for hydration levels (medical grade gadget like a BodyStat) - nobody trains to their potential when dehydrated. As soon as they add carbs back into the diet, bingo! they appear substantially fitter overnight: much less puffed out or in discomfort/ pain so can leapfrog up the levels, able to lift heavier or do cardio for longer.

Of course I am generalising, the problem with these discussions is that 'low carb' is a broad church encompassing what I personally consider to be true/ very low carb right through to moderate carb which can provide an excellent balance of benefits. The other confounding issue is how few true low carbers are eating a balanced diet in terms of micronutrients, they aren't that much better that those on a carpy average British diet. It's shocking how little fish, seafood, nuts and seeds many people who claim to be Paleo/ Primal eat.