Intermittent Fasting Diet.

LegendLust

DavidJB wrote:

All these fancy methods people use...at the end of the day its simple...

if kcals in < kcals out then weight loss.

I loose weight by training, cutting out all crap and portion control. When I eat something I always go for the lightest choices possible. Lets not forget that cutting weight too fast will hurt your cycling.

When you say 'lightest' do you mean lowest in calories or lower fat?

SBezza

DavidJB wrote:

All these fancy methods people use...at the end of the day its simple...

if kcals in < kcals out then weight loss.

I loose weight by training, cutting out all crap and portion control. When I eat something I always go for the lightest choices possible. Lets not forget that cutting weight too fast will hurt your cycling.

From my personal experience it isn't as simple as kcals in < kcals out, composition of your diet can have a big impact on fat loss. I have tracked calorie intake and calorie output (with a powermeter), and it took a change in what type of food I ate (with roughly the same daily calorie intake) before I saw progressive change on the scales and it was good to see it was fat loss rather than just weightloss.

I don't choose the lightest options, I choose the healthiest options (from a body's point of view not a text book, or dietican/doctors point of view), and eat virtually no processed packaged foods.

Trev The Rev

SBezza wrote:

DavidJB wrote:

All these fancy methods people use...at the end of the day its simple...

if kcals in < kcals out then weight loss.

I loose weight by training, cutting out all crap and portion control. When I eat something I always go for the lightest choices possible. Lets not forget that cutting weight too fast will hurt your cycling.

From my personal experience it isn't as simple as kcals in < kcals out, composition of your diet can have a big impact on fat loss. I have tracked calorie intake and calorie output (with a powermeter), and it took a change in what type of food I ate (with roughly the same daily calorie intake) before I saw progressive change on the scales and it was good to see it was fat loss rather than just weightloss.

I don't choose the lightest options, I choose the healthiest options (from a body's point of view not a text book, or dietican/doctors point of view), and eat virtually no processed packaged foods.

There is a lot of research which backs up what Bezza is saying. Off the top of my head without referring to anything and from memory the body converts almost 100% of calories from carbs but only 70% of the calories from protein. The body finds it easier to turn surplus carbohydrate calories into fat than it does protein. Carbs also tend to make you feel hungry soon after but protein & fat satisfies you for longer. It is also important to get your carbs from the right foods. Bread, pasta, rice not being as good as vegetables etc etc.

There are very powerful groups with vested interests which want to perpetuate the calories in calories out myth. They want you and your children to consume sugar, and other highly processed carbohydrates because this is where they make their profit.

I think I'm going to be banned soon.

mattshrops

What do you think the secret international cartel of sugar daddies is watching bikeradar and will be putting pressure on to silence trev the truth?

dhbemis@yahoo.com

I liked one of Trev's original points that we are equipped from an evolutionary standpoint to be able to handle occasional fasting.
Did anyone see Tyler Hamilton's book where he described one of his methods for weight loss? He would do a long training ride, have a big glass of water and sleeping tablets when he got home, lay down for a nap w/out eating anything and if he was lucky he'd sleep through until morning!

chrisaonabike

Trev The Rev wrote:

the calories in calories out myth.

It's only a myth in the sense that it slightly oversimplifies.

The calories required to process the food consumed needs to be included in the calories out. That's different for different types of food.

It doesn't change the fact that if you consume more than you burn, you'll put on the excess as fat. If you consume less than you burn, it's more complicated, since there are several different things that the body contains that can be used as fuel. But those things will be consumed nevertheless.

Trev The Rev

dhbemis@yahoo.com wrote:

I liked one of Trev's original points that we are equipped from an evolutionary standpoint to be able to handle occasional fasting.
Did anyone see Tyler Hamilton's book where he described one of his methods for weight loss? He would do a long training ride, have a big glass of water and sleeping tablets when he got home, lay down for a nap w/out eating anything and if he was lucky he'd sleep through until morning!

I did an experiment recently.

Fasted for 24 hours.

1. Did not feel hungry - which was a surprise.
2. Found no drop in performance even after 22 hours without food. In fact felt remarkably strong.
3. Did not overcompensate by eating more than usual the following day, in fact felt full sooner and ate less.
5. Lost 1.8 kilos. (mostly water I assume)
6. Still lost 1.3 kilos after the normal eating day.
7. Performance still normal the following days.

Trev The Rev

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

the calories in calories out myth.

It's only a myth in the sense that it slightly oversimplifies.

The calories required to process the food consumed needs to be included in the calories out. That's different for different types of food.

It doesn't change the fact that if you consume more than you burn, you'll put on the excess as fat. If you consume less than you burn, it's more complicated, since there are several different things that the body contains that can be used as fuel. But those things will be consumed nevertheless.

Yes agreed but online calorie counters and apps and diet books (even reputable ones) do not take this into account. This is also not taken into account when calculating calories required to maintain weight and calories needed to cover training.

I have also seen a test where people were deliberately over fed, all put on some weight, but some put on almost no fat but did put on muscle. Some put on only fat. Some put on much more weight than others. All seemed to revert back to their normal weight when they went back to their normal diets. None of them were fat or obese to start with and all were young.

chrisaonabike

Trev The Rev wrote:

I have also seen a test where people were deliberately over fed, all put on some weight, but some put on almost no fat but did put on muscle. Some put on only fat. Some put on much more weight than others. All seemed to revert back to their normal weight when they went back to their normal diets. None of them were fat or obese to start with and all were young.

Putting on muscle but not fat is surprising.

Did the test reliably exclude:

- secret weight training?
- pre-existing conditions involving muscle wastage?

Trev The Rev

ChrisAOnABike wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

I have also seen a test where people were deliberately over fed, all put on some weight, but some put on almost no fat but did put on muscle. Some put on only fat. Some put on much more weight than others. All seemed to revert back to their normal weight when they went back to their normal diets. None of them were fat or obese to start with and all were young.

Putting on muscle but not fat is surprising.

Did the test reliably exclude:

- secret weight training?
- pre-existing conditions involving muscle wastage?

I have no idea how controlled the subjects were or what was published. It was in the UK so should be possible to track down the research. Found it.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-are- ... e-not-fat/