- This topic has 18 voices and 68 replies.
-
Posts
-
Should the metabolically deranged go longer periods low carb? Or should they eat carbs more frequently?
According to Kiefer and what others seem to say, go longer ULC. Leptin and thyroid aren't effected as quickly.This is in regards to syndrome X type derangement.When it does to people who have crashed their metabolism from low term low calorie, excessive cardio, and the like whom aren't super overweight but more so "skinny fat" then having carbs more frequently and building the metabolic engine will likely be better.
I asked because to me, it doesn't make much sense if someone who was a chronic diet and isn't losing fat to go even longer ULC. For instance, there has been quite a few people that were on low carb diets for years and don't lose anything. Then they switch to CNS and still fail. I think those people should have carbs more often.
I agree, those people should likely be on CBL and trying to build their metabolism back up and realize that they may gain some fat (and likely muscle) but needs to not focus on losing fat for 6-12 months while they fix the past damage done.So it depends on what context the phrase "metabolic derangement" is being used.Normally metabolic derangement is used when describing severly overweight, pre-diabetics whom haven't paid attention to what they eat for more then 1 month out of a year.And lately the phrase "Metabolic damage" is being used to describe people whom have crash dieted, severely dieted, done chronic cardio, or something of the like to slow their metabolism to just barely doing doing.
Should the metabolically deranged go longer periods low carb? Or should they eat carbs more frequently?
According to Kiefer and what others seem to say, go longer ULC. Leptin and thyroid aren't effected as quickly.This is in regards to syndrome X type derangement.When it does to people who have crashed their metabolism from low term low calorie, excessive cardio, and the like whom aren't super overweight but more so "skinny fat" then having carbs more frequently and building the metabolic engine will likely be better.
I asked because to me, it doesn't make much sense if someone who was a chronic diet and isn't losing fat to go even longer ULC. For instance, there has been quite a few people that were on low carb diets for years and don't lose anything. Then they switch to CNS and still fail. I think those people should have carbs more often.
I agree, those people should likely be on CBL and trying to build their metabolism back up and realize that they may gain some fat (and likely muscle) but needs to not focus on losing fat for 6-12 months while they fix the past damage done.So it depends on what context the phrase "metabolic derangement" is being used.Normally metabolic derangement is used when describing severly overweight, pre-diabetics whom haven't paid attention to what they eat for more then 1 month out of a year.And lately the phrase "Metabolic damage" is being used to describe people whom have crash dieted, severely dieted, done chronic cardio, or something of the like to slow their metabolism to just barely doing doing.
What an interesting discussion.I am someone who lost well "once upon a time" on around 30-50 carbs per day.Now (post children, age 40) I loose NOTHING on even very low carbs (20 or less).Have been "chronically" low carb dieting for months at a stretch.Still fat.Are you suggesting that I CBL? That sounds... I don't know ...scary sounds a bit hyperobolic but... ???Not saying I wouldn't try it... but my plan was to stay purely CNS until I lost a significant amount of body fat and then switch to CBL (as I intend to continue weight training).No plans to switch to CBL at the moment.
I am a very fat woman who bought the book a year ago. Imagine my chagrin to peruse the forums to find out the information in my $30 book is "outdated". As someone who (I think) falls into the category of the "metabolically deranged" (a term which did NOT appear in the book I read), I am guessing I am "safe" to go with a 14 day window.But, I am not sure...
I agree with your anger and or frustration. The issue is it can lead to self doubt. That is something we do not want. If you have solid data from your previous track record of every 7 days, I would for sure start going to 14 days and see how the numbers compare. I would "guesstimate" that you are going to see a 25-40% better result between Carb Nites. I have absolutely no scientific evidence to say that, but it seems logical that staying ULC longer will burn more fat.If mentally you "need" that 7th day Carb Nite, then stay at seven.
Listen, days between refeeds depend on your needs. I havent read CNS but from my understanding its more of a general public dieting book vs an athlete's guide to weight loss. There are distinct differences between the general public and someone who's trying to lose a few pounds of fat and maintain his muscle.If you read anything from Lyle McDonald(I know Kiefer doesn't talk highly of him, probably due to conflict of interest), it states the lower the Bodyfat the more frequent the refeeds. Not to throw a number out there, but as bodyfat decreases(less than 10%) the importance of leptin and the psychological benefit of refeeds increases. At some point even weekly refeeds arent frequent enough, but at minimal fat levels a lot of diet tricks are necessary.Also if someone isnt losing weight with ULC diets they need to look at their calorie consumption, because its possible to gain weight with low carbs or maintain.
I am a very fat woman who bought the book a year ago. Imagine my chagrin to peruse the forums to find out the information in my $30 book is "outdated". As someone who (I think) falls into the category of the "metabolically deranged" (a term which did NOT appear in the book I read), I am guessing I am "safe" to go with a 14 day window.But, I am not sure...
I agree with your anger and or frustration. The issue is it can lead to self doubt. That is something we do not want. If you have solid data from your previous track record of every 7 days, I would for sure start going to 14 days and see how the numbers compare. I would "guesstimate" that you are going to see a 25-40% better result between Carb Nites. I have absolutely no scientific evidence to say that, but it seems logical that staying ULC longer will burn more fat.If mentally you "need" that 7th day Carb Nite, then stay at seven.
Listen, days between refeeds depend on your needs. I havent read CNS but from my understanding its more of a general public dieting book vs an athlete's guide to weight loss. There are distinct differences between the general public and someone who's trying to lose a few pounds of fat and maintain his muscle....Also if someone isnt losing weight with ULC diets they need to look at their calorie consumption, because its possible to gain weight with low carbs or maintain.
Typically true, but my cals were probably too low. I was eating like, one steak a day and coffee with HWC. Anyway, I realize that I am a weird outlyer and not a normal person. I am going to have a hard way to go if I want to loose fat, this has become apparent to me. It is going to be an interesting experiment.Keifer's book made me reconsider the notion of "the closer to zero carb, the better" All. The. Time. I appreciate that, but am still trying to figure out how to make it work for me. Perhaps I am guilty of considering a tweak "too soon" into the program. But, that is another issue altogether.Meanwhile, I do believe that I "run" better on Low Carb vs High Carb, so that is a part of the equation I feel I have "solved".
I think the issue is that kiefers book is dated to what he knows so he is handing out advice that is more tailored now that he can. In short Carb Night is a one size fits all solution. Sure it will work but the outliers get screwed. I think the solution is he updates re writes Carb Night. On its launch he should offer a discount to all those who have a copy of the book already. Science is a moving target sure but that just means you have to be consistent in your willingness to change. That includes a book. Also for the most part he should stop selling Carb Night if it is that out dated!!!
I wouldn't call Carb Nite outdated, it just doesn't have the fancy tweaks that have been recently discovered. As far as the people who fail to lose fat on a low carb diet, I think there are other things at play. I don't know much about this area, but I have a hard time thinking calories are the problem. Someone who has the discipline to eat low carb would likely discover on their own if they were over eating.
I concur but maybe we are missing a detail in a previous podcast or maybe someone who is not really working out would benefit from cn 14 days out jus sayin Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
n@s
I concur but maybe we are missing a detail in a previous podcast or maybe someone who is not really working out would benefit from cn 14 days out jus sayin Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes but the once a week Carb Nite will work for 90% of the population.
I wouldn't call Carb Nite outdated, it just doesn't have the fancy tweaks that have been recently discovered. As far as the people who fail to lose fat on a low carb diet, I think there are other things at play. I don't know much about this area, but I have a hard time thinking calories are the problem. Someone who has the discipline to eat low carb would likely discover on their own if they were over eating.
women dieting in general is difficult, creating a 250-500 calorie deficit required for weight loss is difficult when you consume 1200-1400 on maintenance. low carbs help sometimes because people can often eat the same amount of calories and lose weight, but that wont last forever.in my experience, weight-loss from low carb dieting comes from the calories on the refeed day, being utilized to refill glycogen. would be metabolically the same as Brad Pilon's "Stop Eat Stop" diet.so if your workouts aren't using glycogen then you are sabotaging yourself by refeeding, regardless of the calories you are eating.The purpose of the refeed is to replenish leptin levels, increase glycogen, and improve dopamine via psychologically feeling better.if you aren't losing weight then your leptin levels aren't down, if you aren't exercising you dont need glycogen. therefore you don't need a refeed, regardless of how much you want one.
I wouldn't call Carb Nite outdated, it just doesn't have the fancy tweaks that have been recently discovered. As far as the people who fail to lose fat on a low carb diet, I think there are other things at play. I don't know much about this area, but I have a hard time thinking calories are the problem. Someone who has the discipline to eat low carb would likely discover on their own if they were over eating.
women dieting in general is difficult, creating a 250-500 calorie deficit required for weight loss is difficult when you consume 1200-1400 on maintenance. low carbs help sometimes because people can often eat the same amount of calories and lose weight, but that wont last forever.in my experience, weight-loss from low carb dieting comes from the calories on the refeed day, being utilized to refill glycogen. would be metabolically the same as Brad Pilon's "Stop Eat Stop" diet.so if your workouts aren't using glycogen then you are sabotaging yourself by refeeding, regardless of the calories you are eating.The purpose of the refeed is to replenish leptin levels, increase glycogen, and improve dopamine via psychologically feeling better.if you aren't losing weight then your leptin levels aren't down, if you aren't exercising you dont need glycogen. therefore you don't need a refeed, regardless of how much you want one.
That's makes sense for some, but it still doesn't explain people who have been on low carb diets for months or years (the kind with no or very infrequent refeeeds) and fail to lose fat. I suppose overeating may be an issue, but I have a hard time believing that isn't corrected after a few weeks of being on the diet.
That's makes sense for some, but it still doesn't explain people who have been on low carb diets for months or years (the kind with no or very infrequent refeeeds) and fail to lose fat. I suppose overeating may be an issue, but I have a hard time believing that isn't corrected after a few weeks of being on the diet.
I couldn't do it if i didn't see progress, its too boring and painful... I'd have to go to a different diet.something isn't right if you aren't losing weight. i just don't believe if someone was truly doing a low carb diet for the weight to not come off.
There is weight and then there is weight. I can easly get down to 225 I am at like 235 right now but I YO YO back up as soon as I stop watching calories juicing and runing 6 miles a day. That said the promise of carb night for me is lose fat keep muscle. The main thing I need is to burn fat. Period. so as long as the diet still delivers on that great but It may not be the best thing for me as my usual physical activity dose not fit with the diet. If I can get faster results through some new information I am going to feel a little disappointed in the author because I just bought his book and its already behind the time. So for me anything that is slowing my progression is depriving me of my chosen lifestyle. If you have already made the choice to go into A CBL life style then it really is no big deal for you because CN is going to be a stepping stone to a diet you can massively tweak on the road to being a body builder. For me I will probably go paleo and concentrate on plyo and gymnastic, acrobatic, parqour (spelled that wrong), and running. I guess in that I find my frustration with the target changing and CN's being so far behind as an athlete I need good information on just how this thing works so I can adapt it to my needs. Where as CN is really just a diet as apposed to being a guide.
... Someone who has the discipline to eat low carb would likely discover on their own if they were over eating.
+1
I am a very fat woman who bought the book a year ago. Imagine my chagrin to peruse the forums to find out the information in my $30 book is "outdated". I would have very much preferred to know at the outset that I was purchasing outdated information or information that is "under review" and that a new edition is coming out soon. I would have appreciated knowing, from the beginning, that as a fat woman, I COULD go more than 7 days without a carb nite without "destroying my thyroid". But, what's done is done.I was going to post today about how long I should push out my carb window. I have read on this thread alone two different "absolutes": 14 days and 10 days.As someone who (I think) falls into the category of the "metabolically deranged" (a term which did NOT appear in the book I read), I am guessing I am "safe" to go with a 14 day window.But, I am not sure...????
Carb nite worked ten years ago as it was written, and the same material will get you results today. The finer points of fatty acid profiles, macro ratios and refeed schedules are gravy for people who want to dive in deep for "that extra two percent of results," as Kiefer once put it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.