Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-11-2014, 12:40 AM   #16  
Embracing the suck
 
JohnP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,185

S/C/G: 300/234/abs

Height: 6'9"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annik View Post
Unless you're super sensitive to sugar...
Tell me more about this super sugar sensativity and how it affects a bodies ability to burn fat.
JohnP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 07:38 PM   #17  
Started IP May 17, 2013
Thread Starter
 
Annik's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 677

S/C/G: 287/179/150

Height: 5'7.5"

Default

The low-carb diet by definition is considered to be anything less than 100 g of carbs per day. Carbs are converted to sugar by the body.

Many people who are insulin resistant/metabolically challenged need to take their carbs even lower. Following the protocols of ideal protein keeps one at about 30 g of carbs a day.

I need to keep my carbs at about 25g per day in order to be effective at weight-loss... So that's where things like lemon juice which is considered free food on ideal protein can make a difference. Though it's not high in sugar, if I'm using it to flavour drinks and teas and salads and food, it can be one of the things when combined with all factors that can take my sugar/carb content too high for weight loss.

Last edited by Annik; 09-11-2014 at 07:46 PM.
Annik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2014, 09:31 PM   #18  
Embracing the suck
 
JohnP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,185

S/C/G: 300/234/abs

Height: 6'9"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annik View Post
The low-carb diet by definition is considered to be anything less than 100 g of carbs per day. Carbs are converted to sugar by the body.

Many people who are insulin resistant/metabolically challenged need to take their carbs even lower. Following the protocols of ideal protein keeps one at about 30 g of carbs a day.

I need to keep my carbs at about 25g per day in order to be effective at weight-loss... So that's where things like lemon juice which is considered free food on ideal protein can make a difference. Though it's not high in sugar, if I'm using it to flavour drinks and teas and salads and food, it can be one of the things when combined with all factors that can take my sugar/carb content too high for weight loss.
I really appreciate when someone takes the time to research and learn about a new topic. In my opinion you're about 70% educated on this subject.

I know you're caught up in the low carb paradigm where calories are not the thing but there is simply no mechanism for the body to meet it's energy needs by anything other than what we ingest and what is currently stored in our body. Make no mistake, the energy needs of the body will be met.

In theory it's possible that someone could be so insulin resistant that they would have less energy output to a significant degree by going above 50 g of carbs per day (which by all accounts is considered a ketogetic diet) but that would be pretty rare, certainly not many people as you say. To suggest that one would need to go below 30 g of carbs per day to lose fat is ludicrous.

Lets say you eat two banannas and that is the only thing you ate all day. You've gone over 50g of carbs so what happens? Your body functions start shutting down because you haven't eaten anything but you've gone over 50g of carbs so your body can no longer utilize fat for energy? Think about what you're saying here.

I'm not arguing that calories are the only thing that matter. There is no question that for many people, sugar and/or carbs beget more carbs by hunger being spiked so there is the issue of compliance to a dietary plan. There are also many insulin resistant people so carbs can cause sugar crashes which increases hunger not to mention making them lethargic and so they will burn fewer calories as they move less. Having said that if one is following the IP plan I don't see any possible way they would fail to lose weight. Ketosis or no, sugar sensative or no.

The challenge is that no one explains how fat loss actually works so if you go 2-3 weeks without the scale dropping you think there is a problem when in fact 999 out of 1000 times it is just water retention and said person is going to experience a whoosh soon.
JohnP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 06:36 AM   #19  
Senior Member
 
lisa32989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,219

Default

It almost appears as if there is an attempt to discourage Annik from doing what is working for her.

Keep doing what works for you, Annik! And know that there are trainers "out here" who have noticed the standard "calories in/calories out" paradigm doesn't work for everyone. Our bodies can be complex, especially when the metabolism begins to slow (thyroid is in charge of this). You can feed 2 people the same size the same foods but the outcomes can be different, based on absorption. Our bodies are systems and some systems are not functioning well.

Over simplifying anything (either low carb or cals in/out) can leave out crucial info.

I say, if it works, keep it up and don't let anyone try to dissuade you because you can't immediately quote research. n=1 works for me if it's working!
lisa32989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 08:20 AM   #20  
maintaining since 9/2013
 
mars735's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CA
Posts: 1,958

Default

Whenever someone proclaims 'calories in calories out' in the context of weight loss, my mind goes back to Chem 101 & the first Law of Thermodynamics, aka Conservation of Energy. From Wikipedia:

The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic systems. The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but cannot be created or destroyed. The first law is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy of a closed system is equal to the amount of heat supplied to the system, minus the amount of work done by the system on its surroundings.

Cells and organisms are not closed systems. Trying to explain weight loss by applying 'calories in/calories out' it to an open living system like the human body seems simplistic and misguided. The First Law applies, but that equation does not.

Thanks again for sharing your info, Annik, much appreciated

Last edited by mars735; 09-12-2014 at 08:31 AM.
mars735 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 11:22 AM   #21  
Started IP May 17, 2013
Thread Starter
 
Annik's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 677

S/C/G: 287/179/150

Height: 5'7.5"

Default

I encourage John P to watch the documentary Cereal Killers. It is available online for free. It highlights the work of Dr/Prof Timothy Noakes, the experience of Dr. Peter Bruckner and the Australian Cricket Team (world class atheletes who've changed their eating habits), and Donall O'Neill who tries to avoid following in his father's footsteps of heart disease.

If John P were really interested in learning more about this, he'd watch the film. I am a person who has been successful on a new way of eating. I am not a research scientist who is equipped to have an academic conversation about a subject. I am not being defensive. I am pointing John in the direction of learning.

Suffice to say there is a paradigm shift happening in the field of nutrition.

Paradigm shifts are huge. Change doesn't happen easily. From another horizon in my life, I've had to learn a little bit about how change happens in a community. First there are the innovators, then the early adopters come on board. These groups are sometimes referred to as the visionaries and enthusiasts. Once the word spreads, then the early majority comes on board, the late marjority and then the laggards.

The chart attached illuminates this more.

Also, as a side bar to this -- I can eat 2 pounds of butter in one week and not gain weight as long as my carbs are strictly in check.

Grass fed butter would be a better choice because it's not built out of corn == a primary ingredient that's now become mainstream in North American agriculture (if you are a cattle farmer, you'll know that the fastest way to fatten up cattle for sale is to feed them corn.)

I don't want to eat 2 pounds of butter in one week. But my experience since being in maintenance on Ideal Protein is that my body is a lot more forgiving of fats than it is of carbs, sugars and too much protein.

Lisa, n = 1 -- absolutely. This is the only body I have good knowlege of. The reading and documentary film watching I have done in addition reinforces/validates what has been my experience.

Insulin resistance, not producing enough insulin, etc are health issues that challenge proper functioning of the body's digestive system.

Mars -- I really like what you say, 'Cells and organisms are not closed systems. Trying to explain weight loss by applying 'calories in/calories out' it to an open living system like the human body seems simplistic and misguided'

I'll offer another read for JohnP. It's called KetoClarity -- the first book that actually focuses on explanation of nutritional ketosis alone!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg change adopters.jpg (39.2 KB, 15 views)

Last edited by Annik; 09-12-2014 at 11:27 AM.
Annik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 11:30 AM   #22  
Started IP May 17, 2013
Thread Starter
 
Annik's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 677

S/C/G: 287/179/150

Height: 5'7.5"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnP View Post
To suggest that one would need to go below 30 g of carbs per day to lose fat is ludicrous.
Please see my photographs!
Annik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 11:45 AM   #23  
Started IP May 17, 2013
Thread Starter
 
Annik's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Canada
Posts: 677

S/C/G: 287/179/150

Height: 5'7.5"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisa32989 View Post
Our bodies can be complex, especially when the metabolism begins to slow (thyroid is in charge of this). You can feed 2 people the same size the same foods but the outcomes can be different, based on absorption. Our bodies are systems and some systems are not functioning well.

Over simplifying anything (either low carb or cals in/out) can leave out crucial info.
Lisa,

So well said. I am so grateful for doctors and researchers who've been willing to break out of the chains of dogma to look at things from new angles.

It's been my liberation!
Annik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 03:59 PM   #24  
Embracing the suck
 
JohnP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,185

S/C/G: 300/234/abs

Height: 6'9"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lisa32989 View Post
It almost appears as if there is an attempt to discourage Annik from doing what is working for her.
This is extremely offensive. You should know better, having read my posts and butted heads with me before. The last thing I am trying to do is discourage anyone from doing what is working for them. I am trying to make sure people who read this thread get accurate information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annik View Post
Please see my photographs!
I'm very happy for your success. I'm just doubting that your body needs 25g of carbs or less per day to burn fat. Hopefully you can understand there is a difference and don't think that I am trying to discourage you in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annik View Post
I encourage John P to watch the documentary Cereal Killers. It is available online for free.
I will watch it but I seriously doubt I will learn anything new. You are reading far too much into my comments.

I am a low carb proponent for most people I just don't believe there is a thermodynamic advantage to low carb dieting except that the output of energy can be affected through reduced NEAT and SPA in insulin resistant individuals.
JohnP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2014, 04:11 PM   #25  
Embracing the suck
 
JohnP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,185

S/C/G: 300/234/abs

Height: 6'9"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mars735 View Post
Whenever someone proclaims 'calories in calories out' in the context of weight loss, my mind goes back to Chem 101 & the first Law of Thermodynamics, aka Conservation of Energy.

Cells and organisms are not closed systems. Trying to explain weight loss by applying 'calories in/calories out' it to an open living system like the human body seems simplistic and misguided. The First Law applies, but that equation does not.
Ward studies have shown that when you lock people up and protein is sufficient there is no advantage to low carb dieting. That's not the real world and I'm not arguing that it is. Satiation and compliance are major factors in the success of ones diet which is why I am a low carb proponent for most people. This doesn't change the science of how the body utilizes energy.

Calories in/out as a model doesn't mean it's the most successful plan for everyone to follow. Another way to state this is that you lose fat because of a caloric deficit but that doesn't mean all calories are the same when it comes to a number of factors that affect the success of a dietary plan.
JohnP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2014, 11:51 AM   #26  
Embracing the suck
 
JohnP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,185

S/C/G: 300/234/abs

Height: 6'9"

Default

I watched "Cereal Killers". It was pretty well done but there were a couple things that bothered me. Then again it is a documentary and they were trying to prove a point which they did a good job of. I did like it much more than Fat Head. As expected I didn't learn anything new about diet/nutrition/exercise.

Annik now that I have watched the movie you recomended I am going to suggest you to read a blog and maybe you can learn something new.

Carbsanity is a low carb blog but utilizes science not rhetoric.
JohnP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2014, 01:37 AM   #27  
Senior Member
 
canadjineh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 3,446

S/C/G: 163/150/132

Height: 5'8" 173 cm 57 yrs old

Default

Science is constantly evolving.
Did you all know at one time the world was flat... according to science?
canadjineh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2014, 05:59 AM   #28  
Senior Member
 
lisa32989's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,219

Default



And a little more current was the discovery of h pylori as the cause of ulcers. Previously treated by "scientific" medical community as caused by diet/lifestyle.

Scientific studies are expensive. If there's no $$ in it for big biz, it frequently isn't done or isn't done well. That's why so many projects look at correlation.
And, even "good", peer-reviewed published studies have later been shown to have faked data. Especially true in pharmaceutical trials.

Last edited by lisa32989; 09-17-2014 at 05:59 AM.
lisa32989 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-17-2014, 01:41 PM   #29  
Embracing the suck
 
JohnP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: California - East Bay
Posts: 3,185

S/C/G: 300/234/abs

Height: 6'9"

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadjineh View Post
Science is constantly evolving.
No question we are always learning new things. How is this relevant to the conversation at hand?
JohnP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:12 AM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.