2000-2500 calories?, on a low carb? exercise + muscle...

Hi serial245.

Not into exercise particularly unless you count walking to the Pub.

Here is a link to an excellent site with many links for Diabetics and Sports of all kinds.
http://www.runsweet.com/BodyBuilding.html

Have a look here and see if there is something that may help until the 'fitter' members get out of bed !

Ken.

Hi Serial45.
We're entering the realm of low carb mythology here!
I eat a very low carb diet, but not a low calorie one. I'd estimate I get through 2500-3000 calories on any particular day. You will often find people on low carb diets eating fewer calories than this though, particularly if they're trying to shed a few pounds. They often find weight loss quite successful because low carb diets are particularly satiating and more sustainable than low fat diets.
Carbs typically contain 4Kcal per gram, proteins 4Kcal and fats 9Kcal so it's not necessary to eat a lot of carbs in order to eat sufficient calories.
Complex carbs aren't necessary for exercise. Muscles are fueled either by glucose or by free fatty acids. Glucose will caused big bg fluctuations obviously, but fatty acid metabolism won't. I'm just back from a 60 mile bike ride for example, with zero complex carbs beforehand and plenty of energy from my high calorie breakfast!
A diet lower in carbs and higher in protein or fat absolutely won't cause rapid weight gain. Weight gain is primarily a result of elevated insulin in response to excess carbohydrate, not fat.
True, your LDL may increase a little, but your HDL and triglycerides will improve much more so the net effect can often be very beneficial.

All the best,

fergus

I know what you mean, Serial...

I'm certainly coming around to the low carb way of thinking as my post-prandial readings are coming right down (type 1 by the way) and I'm feeling a lot more stable in myself, but I am struggling with the calories big time! I am putting oil on all my salads, eating lots of avocado, I was eating a lot of nuts and seeds too but unfortunately I think I'm sensitive to them as I have noticed they start me itching and craving more and more and more so I've cut them out for a bit :evil: - but still I can't seem to get my calories anywhere near 2000 and I do quite a lot of exercise too. I eat til I'm full at every meal, but still...at the moment I'm eating a couple of pieces of fruit at each meal to get the calories up and I can't see how I'd manage without that if I wanted to cut the carbs further.

I suppose if you eat until full does it matter necessarily if you're not getting the "recommended" amount of calories? I guess if your body wanted more it would still be hungry????

Personally I think we can get way too hung up on the calorie thing - t'would be better if they had never been 'invented'.

The more nutritious your food, the less you need. If you aren't getting enough nutrition from your food your body will keep prompting you to eat.

Much of the carbohydrate 'stodge' is nutritionally 'dead' these days and some will actually rob the body of valuable nutrients. If the diet consists mainly of good (preferably organic) wholesome meat, fish, poultry, eggs, fruit, veg, nuts, seeds and some dairy if you can cope with it then you should be getting a much higher value of nutrition.

I was thinking about those morbidly obese people who can't stop eating? They are caught in a cycle. Their weight demands that they need a huge amount of nutrition to keep their body going. But if you analyse their diet they usually tend to eat huge amounts of stodge - chips, pies, bread, cake, sweets, buns, biscuits, etc, and it is pretty likely that the only vegetable many of them ever see is a high-carb, high-sugar tin of baked beans!

So they are caught in an ever increasing cycle of never getting enough nutrition to cater for their body's demands.

Hunger is the body's way of requesting nutrition. As long as it is getting what it needs it will not need to ask for more.

Well said, AliB.

fergus

Just wanted to add, on the 'do you need carbs for exercise front' (and those of you who know me will know I'm a total convert on this as questioned it myself at first), I ate apx 10g carbs yesterday in total, and did 35 mins intensive exercise at the gym, and later on a two hour fairly brisk walk. I was a bit knackered towards the end of the walk but no more than I would have been anyway as it was quite a long trek. I did get hungry (it was tea time) but had bought some chicken with me so stopped to refuel on that mid way through.

I firmly believe that the human body is capable of making energy out of whatever you put in it, after all we evolved that way because in primitive times there was no guarantee of what food you'd find.

I also believe that to a certain extent you have to train your body to run on low carb food, yes there is a period in the beginning when it may feel weird, as it is not what it is used to, but it soon adapts.

AC x

i've been in the gym every 2 days for the last couple of months, whilst also sticking to a lower carb diet (i'm t2, metformin twice daily). I dont have any notion of calories and never count ( probably why i got overweight in the 1st place ) i just count the carbs and keep them less than 100 at worst, but ideally aim for 30-50. For example of food, i have just eaten 2xbacon, 3 scrabled eggs and a buttered crumpet - about 20 carbs with a cup of tea. i'm down just over half a stone and have no side effects, admittedly i did feel lethargic and have a headache the 1st week of low carbs but that passed. ~The best part is i dont get ravenously hungry and i have energy to last the day
hope this helps

My suggestion would be to get a Collins Gem calorie counter(which also shows carb values) and work out one for yourself.Unfortunately we are all different in what foods we can and cannot eat and what may suit one member may not suit another.

I've lost four stone so far eating elevated fat levels. In this case the proof of the pudding is most definitely in the eating! I have far more energy now then when I ate a lot of carbs!

Actually fats contain more calories than carbohydrates (and it's technically considered unhealthy to be eating over 2500 calories) I survive on about 2250-2400.

However, I also have a lot of muscle (if I do say so myself) and I initially found some muscle loss when I converted to the low-carb diet (I was trying to balance how much protein and fat to eat, and my body started to break down my muscles), but after that, it was easy-peasy to build it back up (I was eating a lot of protein, so my muscles could repair after I'd worked out).

I think that in some situations, calories do matter more. For instance, I am very skinny at just under 5'8" and 126 lbs. I also have fairly low body fat. Despite my small size, my activity level is high enough (and I'm also only 21) such that I'm expending about 2500-2600 calories a day. In my case, if I were to eat a higher protein and fat diet, I would most likely be very satiated at barely 2000 calories, and maybe even less than that. So regardless of my micronutrient intake, more than likely I'd be taking in much fewer calories than I expend. And at my size, I don't really have any room for weight loss.

ForecasterJason said:

I think that in some situations, calories do matter more. For instance, I am very skinny at just under 5'8" and 126 lbs. I also have fairly low body fat. Despite my small size, my activity level is high enough (and I'm also only 21) such that I'm expending about 2500-2600 calories a day. In my case, if I were to eat a higher protein and fat diet, I would most likely be very satiated at barely 2000 calories, and maybe even less than that. So regardless of my micronutrient intake, more than likely I'd be taking in much fewer calories than I expend. And at my size, I don't really have any room for weight loss.

Click to expand...

But how will you know?

I mean, you may be right, but your comment sounds like speculation, rather than experience, so it might be worth trying it, before you decide it won't work.

My experience of raising the fat in my diet is that there were two temporary barriers. The first was ingrained anti-fat indoctrination, because of the way fat has been portrayed all my life, in the media and general low-fat thinking. It took a little time to over come that.

The second thing was giving my body time to adjust to the increase in fat. I mean, just like anything (from alcohol, to vegetables, to coffee), it can take us a while to adjust to increased quantities. A gentle increase in fat is kinder than going full bore and ending up thinking that your body can't cope, when all it needed was a bit of adjustment.

Brunneria said:

But how will you know?

I mean, you may be right, but your comment sounds like speculation, rather than experience, so it might be worth trying it, before you decide it won't work.

My experience of raising the fat in my diet is that there were two temporary barriers. The first was ingrained anti-fat indoctrination, because of the way fat has been portrayed all my life, in the media and general low-fat thinking. It took a little time to over come that.

The second thing was giving my body time to adjust to the increase in fat. I mean, just like anything (from alcohol, to vegetables, to coffee), it can take us a while to adjust to increased quantities. A gentle increase in fat is kinder than going full bore and ending up thinking that your body can't cope, when all it needed was a bit of adjustment.

Click to expand...

You are correct that I haven't tried it so I can't say with full certainty. However, there are two issues I've noticed in situations when I've had a little more fat than normal.

There are a few times that I've added peanut-butter to oatmeal (I think only around 1TBPS for ½ cup dry oats), and I could tell that I was much fuller than without the peanut butter. There In many cases I've also found high fat meals to keep me full for longer periods of time. Secondly, I've noticed that on days when I've eaten more fat than normal, my digestive system tends to be rattled around. From what I can tell, I don't think the type of fat really matters much. Granted, a gradual adjustment upward may not be that bad. But even as it is, I generally eat around 80-90 grams of fat a day, which is far from the minimum amount needed (that works out to 30-35% of my total calories.)

You would probably find that it is the carb AND fat combo that does that.

Think of it as a seesaw. As your fats go up, your carbs come down.
When that happens, the quick digesting carbs don't clash with the slow digesting fats, and you don't have conflict in your gut.

It is the same principle used by the Hay Diet back in the 30s, when Dr Hay suggested that eating high carb with protein/fat was a bad idea - in one fell swoop he virtually eliminated all his patient's indigestion issues.

Holy thread revival! Bumping a 6 year old, thread. It's actually a good one to bump because it's so entertaining.

I love all the "broscience" in this thread. It's downright hilarious.

If you weigh 126 pounds, the last thing you want to be doing is maintaining a caloric deficit.

While 2500 calories isn't unheard of, you'd have to be incredibly active at your body weight to use that much energy each day. That's about what my BMR is and I weigh ~205 lbs with ~12-14% body fat.

TorqPenderloin said:

Holy thread revival! Bumping a 6 year old, thread. It's actually a good one to bump because it's so entertaining.

I love all the "broscience" in this thread. It's downright hilarious.

If you weigh 126 pounds, the last thing you want to be doing is maintaining a caloric deficit.

While 2500 calories isn't unheard of, you'd have to be incredibly active at your body weight to use that much energy each day. That's about what my BMR is and I weigh ~205 lbs with ~12-14% body fat.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be in a caloric deficit, but according to my A1C reading I am considered prediabetic.
I have a Fitbit, and while of course I know it's not 100% accurate, generally from what I've read these trackers actually tend to underestimate calories burned (especially considering it can't track upper body movement.) The U.S. recommendations for someone my age and my activity level is 2800 calories, though that's for a 5'10" 154 lb male. So, 2500 calories sounds about right considering I'm about 30 lbs lighter.