Low-Carb Is Dead

[Dreamliner]

When he asked me how long he needed to do this I told him, "As long as it takes."

Some people will just take the ball and run with it. Some people need concrete plans. Some people need granite plans.

[Dreamliner]

And even when you measure you have to measure correctly. Here, Leigh Peele confesses that she, a highly-respected fat-loss expert underestimate the calories in her breakfast by about 35% EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS PRE-MEASURING:

http://leanbodieshf.com/?p=1817

[LeafUF]

Yeah, I think even measuring just gives you a good guess.

[Dreamliner]

Studies have shown that even at restaurants that list the calories in their entrees, you're likely to get 200 to 300 calories more than advertised and sometimes a lot more than that.

[ATL_Gator]

To "count calories" and think that you are consuming EXACTLY the amount of calories you calculated is a rediculous idea anyway. i.e. "I ate 1562 calories today"...

1. How they determine how many calories are in the food you are eating.

The amount of food energy in a particular food could be measured by completely burning the dried food in a bomb calorimeter, a method known as direct calorimetry. However, the values given on food labels are not determined this way, because it overestimates the amount of energy that the human digestive system can extract, by also burning dietary fiber. Instead, standardized chemical tests and an analysis of the recipe are used to estimate the product's digestible constituents (protein, carbohydrate, fat, etc.). These results are then converted into an equivalent energy value based on a standardized table of energy densities

1a. The table of energy densiteis they refer to above is basically a unit of something (i.e. fat) is equal to X number of calories (kcal). These tables are also filled with estimates.. the number of calories per unit of material is not determined from ONE test, but from a bunch of tests, and the number used is the average of all the test. In truth, the tests have a statisitcal distribution to them, thus, the 9 kcal per gram (guessing) of fat is really 9 kcal +/- the standard deviation from the tests.

2. Portion sizes of items, especially if you are making a recipe, even more especially if you are using a volume measurement to determine the amount of a food you are eating.

Mass measurements allieviate this SOME, but you are still restricted to the accuracy of the scale being used.

Volume measurements.. how much are they talking about when the box/label says XX calories per cup? A cup of the product scooped into a cup, as it is sold, no messing with it after the scoop? A cup of the product scooped into a cup, then tapped/shaken a bit to improve the packing efficency inside the cup, then refilled back to the 1 cup level? Perhaps the product ground into a powder then filled to a cup?

If you are counting calories, you MIGHT be within 10%, and that is probably doing pretty good.

In my opinion, you should LOOSELY count calories for a short amount of time to get an idea of how much you consume, and more importantly learn the caloric density of the foods you tend to eat.

[ATL_Gator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

Studies have shown that even at restaurants that list the calories in their entrees, you're likely to get 200 to 300 calories more than advertised and sometimes a lot more than that.

The calorie content of the food as listed at the restaurant is ONLY applicable to the recipe. What you get may be similar to the recipe, but that weather or not the preparer made it that way and/or the customer ordered it that way is completely up in the air.

For instance... Subway lists calories of their subs. The fine print states that the sub is a 6 inch sub (exactly measured, not a "foot long" roll roughly cut in half) with just the standard fixings on it, which DOES NOT include cheese, mayonaise, oil or vinegar. So obviously, if you get those things on it, the calorie total goes up. What is HIDDEN in the listed calories is what the recipe is, espeically for the fixings, which is like so many ounces of lettuce, so many ounces of onions, 3 pickles, 4 olives, so many ounces of green peppers, so on and so forth. (the 3 pickles and 4 olives per 6" sub was the recipe when I worked there).

HOWEVER, how are the subs actually made? A hand full of lettuce, a 3 finger pinch of onion, a partial hand full of pickles (not 3), enough green peppers to look good, one or two 3 finger pinches of olives (not 4 per 6 inch). Every single item added to the sandwich is more than likely above (if not well above) what the recipe calls for, and each is added calories to the sandwich... not even counting what was added that wasn't in the recipe.

[Dreamliner]

That's what I'm talking about. At your sit-down restaurant you're at the mercy of the guy who spoons it out. And even at Subway you'd be better off adding 10%.

On the subject of exact calorie computation, I agree with what you're saying. For the average person it's virtually impossible. So best guess is the best option. And best guess beats wild guess every time.

But back to the sit-down restaurant I'd sooner tell someone to take the calorie estimate and cut it in HALF. As far as I'm concerned, an obese person can't lose weight too quickly, assuming their getting the requisite nutrients, which is always less than you think.

[LeafUF]

ATL that was all sciency.

[Dreamliner]

Whenever I encounter a person who's frustrated about not being able to lose weight, in spite of their best efforts to control their eating, I wish it were as simple as just saying, "Well, guess what ? That just means you have to eat even less than you are now."

Now that IS true. But I quickly found out that when I said that, I'd typically illicit some eyelid-twitching. It's as if people are asking, "But how can I possibly do that ?"

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

I'm not sure about the bodybuilders anymore. Recently I read that Jay Cutler got 700g carbs a day right up to the Mr. Olympia contest and runner-up Branch Warren 1,000g.

Never, ever believe what a bodybuilder tells you about anything.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Obviously, it's all calories in - calories out. But the successes of those on low-carb diets tends to suggest to me that something about it makes it easier to restrict calories. Whether that's satiety or something else, I don't know. But it works for too many people.

Carbs are certainly not evil, but the low-carb approach works for a lot of people.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Never, ever believe what a bodybuilder tells you about anything.

Probably not a bad policy.

[ATL_Gator]

Originally Posted by LeafUF

ATL that was all sciency.

Engineer, can't help it.

[Dreamliner]

ATL, how are you doing, by the way ?

[JoeGator09]

I've been trying to pack on the pounds in the last two years.
I'll add my $.02

I bulked up almost 40lbs, but wasn't ripped.
I figured I could start cutting carbs and get that figured out.
It was REALLY hard to cut carbs without cutting calories, and I noticed that after a few days of eating minimal carbs, I was a lot more defined, but also was taking in less calories and not able to lift as hard as before.

I don't worry about carbs anymore.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by JoeGator09

I've been trying to pack on the pounds in the last two years.
I'll add my $.02

I bulked up almost 40lbs, but wasn't ripped.
I figured I could start cutting carbs and get that figured out.
It was REALLY hard to cut carbs without cutting calories, and I noticed that after a few days of eating minimal carbs, I was a lot more defined, but also was taking in less calories and not able to lift as hard as before.

I don't worry about carbs anymore.

THAT'S what I'm talking about. People make it seem like carbs in themselves are insidious.

[ATL_Gator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

ATL, how are you doing, by the way ?

Not bad really. Life keeps me busy, too much so at times.

Between being busy, stress at work, travel, and Christmas.. I have eaten like crap, so paying the reprocussions now. bleh.

On the good news... I was floored by my wife at the beginning of the year. Apparently my attempts to lose/keep weight off has finally started to rub off on my wife (though I can't see how anything I did over the end of last year was any sort of inspiration). She is starting to change things. Right now it is just what and how she is eating. I am working on convincing her to do some workout stuff, just body weight things. She is resistant to that so far, but I am trying to be careful about it. She is the type that will get discouraged and go back to old eating habits.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Obviously, it's all calories in - calories out. But the successes of those on low-carb diets tends to suggest to me that something about it makes it easier to restrict calories. Whether that's satiety or something else, I don't know. But it works for too many people.

Carbs are certainly not evil, but the low-carb approach works for a lot of people.

Well, that's what I said in my OP. In roughly half the free-living studies, low-carbers do marginally better than high-carbers. And this is commonly attributed to greater satiety.

[StrangeGator]

Forget low carbs vs. high carbs. Focus on good carbs vs. bad carbs.

[LeafUF]

Meh, I only eat "bad carbs" and as long as I dont eat too much of them I am fine.

Though I did recently stop eating candy. That was tough.