Question to Goldfish and Theleip - nutrition related, quite detailef - tools we have

A

Ardy2012

0
Hi everyone!

Great forum with great advices and guides on training/nutrition for weight loss. I have a practical question for authors of guides published in this thread:
- So for those who decided "to do it", there are a lot of complications on the way. One of which is major - psychological - "I don't want to feel too restricted/controlled/crazy about what I eat". At the same time Thelein raised up a great issue - if you don't measure what you eat ACCURATELY, you may not see any results...
To my mind it is easier if the process is simplified by something which helps you to keep track of what you ate and how much did that "cost" you.

Its 2012 and everyone is using iphones, websites all this smart staff.

I wanted to ask you if you know any of such free/not too expensive but definitely worth while solutions to use?

Now this is a major disconnect whith what I've heard and read on this forums. Not a big guru but I think the very important thing is not only how many calories you eat, but rather what they compose off...

Would greatly appreciate some advice on this matter!
Thank you!!
 
I understand the thread was edited to delete the app name? (So it does not really make any sense now :))

It also deleted the main question though.

Which is - that particular app (or lets assume any diet adviser) advised certain proportions of protein/carbs and fat. So - can target 1200 calory diet (for 104 lbs female) - be calculated as 45 protein, 40 fat and carbs being the rest? I would expect more protein less fat/carbs... What are the right ones (maybe these are ok?) and finally - do you know any easy to use software which would have this right(if abovementioned composition is wrong).


Thank you again!
 
I am not Goldfish or Theleip but can answer a few bits.
There are a lot of diet apps out there. Some can only be seen as short term, high protein low cal for active people, others more long term, balanced reduction of calories with sustained exercise. I don't know which are best but anything Aitkens like please avoid unless for very short term, people have literally died using his dangerously stupid systems, and he wasn't a nutritionist.
Balanced diet for a human is predominantly complex carbs, moderate protein, low fat, and very low simple sugars. Modern diet is often high sugar and fats, even without people realising, high protein and moderate complex carbs. This is one of the reasons for our generally poor health.
If you need a quick loss, high protein, lower carb and low fat, can work if total intake is low calorie. Only ever do this for a couple of months max, and never cut carbs too low.
If you need sustainable loss make sure the diet follows the food pyramid and reduce everything, until getting to your target, then vary to find your ideal level.
 
Thank you for your answer... Where can I read more about this food pyramid (as obviously it sounds more beneficial in a long run to go with the results that stay...).

For now i really got 1 gram of protein per pound, half of that of fats and the rest being carbs (preferably NOT from sugar/bakery/donuts). That would give me
Protein - 112 (40%)
Carbs - 70 (25%)
Fat - 44 (35%)

Any quick tweaks to that? (Female, 106 pounds, 95 goal, 5 feet 2 inches)
 
^ Just type "food pyramid" into google and it'll come up within the first few results, as it's a tool that governments and dieticians have been using for a long time. Personally, I don't agree with the food pyramid, but that's another matter.

<><><>

So, I'm kinda flattered that a thread has been created specifically targeting me. Unfortunately, my phone was one of the old models when I bought it, which was before smart phones and apps really exploded, so I can't offer any advice with regards to useful apps.

I'm a proponent of people who train splitting up their macro-nutrients as you've done here: 1g/lb protein; 0.5g/lb fat; the rest from carbs, preferably whole grain/non-processed. So, with that in mind, a macro-split of 112/70/44 sounds about right.

However, given that you're currently at 106lb, while it's hard to make a judgement based purely on written information, I personally think that you would benefit more from a recomposition (where you end up at the same weight you are now, but with less body fat, more muscle mass, and with a couple inches taken off your waist) than aiming to lose weight. With that being the case, I'd recommend having a calorie goal of 1500-2000kcal/day, rather than 1200, pushing your carb intake up to roughly 150-250g/day.

On the topic of measuring things, this is more important earlier on than down the line. Not that getting the right calorie and macro consumption loses importance, but after a while you'll know how much a handful of some food you regularly eat adds up to, and you'll be able to pick what foods you want to eat then judge just by looking at it whether it's too much, not enough or about right. But for the first few weeks, be prepared to make a lot of measurements. I personally dedicate very little effort to measuring my food. I'll look at the nutritional information on something if I don't already know it, but I know off-hand that a glass of full cream milk will give me about 8g protein, 8g sugar and 10g fat; and I know that if I add stuff to my milk, there'll be more protein, sugar and/or fat. I seldom need to measure anything, because I'm at a place where I can usually make a judgement call without taking out the kitchen scales and a measuring jug. But that comes with acquiring knowledge and experience. So, for now, measure stuff. If an app helps you do that, then make use of it, but a lot of it is just multiplying the nutritional information on the side of the packet (when nutritional information is supplied) by the amount consumed.

Note also that the macro split and daily calories to be consumed are a rough estimate. You've got 112g protein listed. If you have 120g one day and 100g the next, it'll be about right and things should work out.
 
The food pyramid will come up best in a google image search.
The below will shock you to the core but is the ideal balance of calorific intake by percentage. It shocks many because we are being told carbs are the bad guys, reality is we have spent millions of years evolving for a diet of predominantly starchy food.

Values are approximate
Carbs 60-65%, of which ratio should be 95% complex, max 5% simple sugars
Protein 25%
Fats 12%

This balance suits virtually everyone. There are minor tweaks for many individuals but long term this proportion at an overall level that suits you is a good starter.

The mix you are looking at is for short term weight loss using the high protein to fool the body into thinking it is more full than it is while providing enough carbs to fuel fat loss and avoid starvation mode, fat content, not sure why it's so high, but I don't know everything. Excess protein also needs water to be disposed of, and this means very short term weight loss until the body re-adjusts itself and rehydrates you.
Long term the low carb intake would lead the body keep its reduced metabolism, the high fat and protein would mean more fat and lipoprotein (fat made from excess protein) stores that your body will not want to lose.

Basically what you are looking at could work to lose a few pounds in a very short period and this can have a good effect on moral. It isn't unsafe so there is no reason not to give it a go as long as you have a plan B in mind when your body starts craving carbs to re-establish balance, those you will crave will be sugars, those you need will be starch.
 
Thank you - quite honest and comprehensive answers!

The problem with me is that while (yes 106 pounds with 5.2 height) is quite a normal proportion - I failed for quite a long time to achieve my fitness goal (I would agree that recomposition would work - but on me those extra 6 pounds make a HUGE difference). So the goal is yes - to loose permanently 6-8 pounds and thr rest is recomposition.

However it is not easy. I agree that pyramyd sounds more like our natural balance (carbs are everywhere). But - I run 5 miles 3-4 times per week (in bursts), I excersise also in a gym few times (it was not really 5x5 program on strength) but I will try it
I eat below 1200 for sure. Sometimes way below.
And nothing - nothing happens. It is still 106 and I dont have a single vein even on my arms.

So the causes I identified exactly as we spoke:
1. I eat less calories - but those are mainly carbs. As they are granulas and yogurts and apples I live on - there is not much protein coming in. So you can argue I am already on the pyramid.(except for those are wrong carbs)
2. My metabolism is SLOW and I need an advice how to wake it up. Some professionam trainers failed to change it they are just like "well you excersise like a man and eat half of what girls do - we dont know why you dont hange, maybe its medical issue? :)"
 
Oh, and as for flattering - you put out quite a smart guide and definitely know what you are talking about... So its just natural to seek an advice from such people :)
 
The issue restricting your weight loss may actually be that your calorie intake is too low. A lot of people have, over the course of a few weeks, bumped up their calories from <1200 to much higher than that, without changing anything else in their routine, and actually started losing weight again because of it.

The issue could also be stress-related. High amounts of stress can cause the body to hold onto fat and slow down metabolic rate. Doing something to alleviate stress (prayer, meditation, massage, a holiday) and/or cutting out causes of stress (being too high-strung at work, being at work, cardio) could normalise your hormones and allow you to lose weight.

So again I'd recommend bumping up your calories a bit, and doing something therapeutic with your time, and see what happens. It may also be worth while to speak to a doctor, because, to repeat what other trainers have told you, it could be a medical issue.
 
OK Goldie beat me to it on point one but there is more.

Metabolism being slow can be a number of things, medical issues exist but are the extreme minority, and there are usually other symptoms especially regarding temper and attention span.
Dietary wise it's the carbs your body looks for to guide metabolism, along with a few trace minerals and vitamins, but carbs are king here. This is the only area where it doesn't matter which type, virtually everywhere else complex is far and away the best. If there is not enough energy going in the body will not want to spend it.
Activity. If you are active the body needs to have a higher metabolism to maintain it and recover. So exercising regularly helps keep it higher
The spanners in the works.
Stress. Causes the body to pull on reserves you don't necessarily have. In response the body slows you down to conserve energy for survival. This is why people with long term stress are like a yoyo, flying one moment and all but dead the next.
Starvation zone. The big one. If you are in this zone the body thinks it is at real risk or dying, and the body is a serious pessimist here, fortunate for survival, not so much for modern aesthetic desires. When in this zone your body will have metabolism at its lowest manageable level, hold the keys to fat stores very tight, and be ready to convert the slightest perceived temporary excess into more fat. Being here is a good way to ensure you are tired, possibly lose weight, but actually gain percentage body fat either in or directly after. Why as Goldfish said, eating more can make losing weight easier in some cases.

To make the weight loss possible and permanent you need a diet that can sustain you and your activity for life. Starvation will not do this, good balance will.
The carb balance is very important, and the area I get wrong too. Too much sugar hits the insulin curve badly, which is where the fad diet brigade came up with the glycogen index. If you take in carbs they cannot simply be left in the blood stream, dangerous to do so, they need to be stored. Preferred method is as glycogen in the muscles and liver (working from memory, but 99% sure it's liver).
If your intake is complex carbs and activity is high the supply of glucose will be steady and demand frequent so the body will store most as glycogen and burn it before converting to fat. Happy body, no drama.
If your intake is heavy on the simple sugars, the blood is flooded with glucose and the body anticipates this continuing and sends in a glut of insulin to deal with it. In the same way as anyone dealing with a short term emergency the body usually overdoes it, taking more glucose out of the blood stream than you put in, making you hungry and lack lustre, the irony of energy drinks etc. It also means there is too much to be safely stored as glycogen in such short time so more is converted to fat to avoid waste.
In short carbs are not automatically bad news for dieters, but if they are sugars this is. Now to see how ridiculous the diet product industry is, take a look at the sugar content of diet drinks and foods. That's called guaranteeing repeat custom.

Diet is very complex and if you drill down far enough is a brilliant cure for the worst insomnia, even for us sad acts who love it. However if you keep the monitoring at a high level, you can have a great diet and training life without worrying about how many micrograms of high density cholesterol you need to counter the low density rubbish in that lovely cream tea and scone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top