weight loss plateau - any ideas?

[Patch]

Everybody on this forum is wrong.





Except me.

 

[Useless Pretty Boy]

Everybody on this forum is wrong.






Except me.

I believe you, Patch.

I'm loathe to make a rebuttal, especially as the debate is apparently over. However, your argument simply does not make sense. If we're imperfect, as you say, then break-downs are inevitable. The human body cannot replicate DNA perfectly and cannot repair damaged tissue at the rate of necrosis beyond about the age of 30.

I get what you believe, fine. What you're claiming isn't particularly complex at all; in fact, it is remarkably simple. However, simple as your argument is, it's also flawed. I'm simply pointing out that those 'travels' seem to have left you with a warped view of what is normal. Your reaction to wheat, carbohydrate, in fact, seemingly all food, is not normal. It's unfortunate, but it also means that you have extrapolated your own experiences (without required perspective) to arrive at a completely different version of 'normal' than is normal.

Bit of a psychological quagmire, all things considered.

And don't forget...everything on the internet is wrong. Including that sentence.

 

[lynneb]

i am juat diagnosed type 2 in May, I too have lost 2 1/2 stone, and now it has plateaued.
My nurse told me to have nothing more than 5 % fat , but said nothing about carbs, I really dont understand what carbs are, can u help me too?

 

[sugarless sue]

You can try reading this link Lynne ,maybe it will help ,if not just ask.

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=5446&start=0

 

[pedro606]

I read that thead and wanted to ask a question but it is 'locked'. I'll ask it here.


The only truly GOOD carb for a diabetic is Cellulose, which we can’t digest at all. It’s dietary fibre, or roughage and keeps the gut working, giving it something to push on
Can someone please suggest what type of foods are high in Cellulose?

many thanks,

Pete

 

[Doczoc]

Anything green!

 

[pedro606]

So can we say all veg other than root veg?

The reason I say that is that I eat quite a bit of roast veg and stir fry veg that includes red/yellow/orange/green peppers etc. I have to say that I become very 'regular' toiletwise after eating it so , I guess, that confirms the theory. Am I right in thinking that.

 

[sugarless sue]

As a rough rule of thumb , anything that grows underground is usually higher in carbs than anything that grows above ground.

 

[AliB]

Yes, you're right Sue, but being pedantic actually grains grow above ground too and they are very high in carbs!

I'm sure Pete understood that you meant vegetables! :lol:

Lynne - basically carbohydrates are anything made from grains, starches or sugar. So bread, rolls, cakes, crackers, biscuits, cookies, pies, pastries, flans - anything with a crust or biscuit base, anything thickened with flour (wheat or corn or potato or rice), puddings, trifles, sweetened drinks, squashes, juices, ice cream, sweets, snacks, crisps, chips, potatoes and other root vegetables like parsnips, swede, turnip and carrots (raw carrots are better than cooked and cooked ones can be eaten in small quantities). Anything with added sugar. Some fruits are sweeter than others. Berries are generally fairly low carb. Carbs can be hidden in foods too, so you need to get used to reading the back of packets and tins to see how much carb is in different foods.

For instance, people view baked beans as a savoury food, yet if you read the label, on top of the carbs that are already in the beans, they generally tend to contain added sugar and thickeners in the sauce, so can actually be very high carbohydrate.

Unfortunately, carbs are in most of the 'yummy' stuff that our over-developed sweet-teeth can never seem to get enough of.

It's amazing how quickly you lose that sweet tooth though once you stop eating those things - and how sickly they taste when you do have any.

Have you read Fergus's Newbie's guide? He gives good guidelines on what can be eaten on the low-carb regime. It's at the top of the Low-carb forum Index page.

You can have things like cream, so an occasional treat of a few strawberries and/or other berries and cream (unsweetened) won't necessarily be out of the question.

The best way of monitoring is to eat a little of different carb foods separately, and then test your blood 2 hours later (if you have a meter) to see how your body reacts. Some people can have a bit of rice with no problem, others perhaps a little potato or a few chips. Others can't cope with any of them at all, so it really depends on you as an individual.

 

[Doczoc]

I'm sorry, but you're making a classic mistake. I never said it wasn't possible to get stronger, or to be strong on a low carb diet. You're assuming that strength and muscle size are directly related. They're just not. Hence a power lifter who is the same size as an aesthetic body builder is much stronger."

Hmmm not sure about this one. Size and strength are directly related, hence different weight classes in powerlifting. Comparing body builders and powerlifters is like comparing chalk and cheese, they have completely different goals. Assuming both have a core of mass and strength. Powerlifters go for compound exercises and explosive form whilst body builders tend to do higher reps and are more focused on exact form. A bit of a generalisation but those are the most obvious differences. So depending on how you define strength, ie explosive power or endurance it's not as clean cut as you seem to think. Having said that have you seen Greg Kovaks, Marcus Ruhl or Ronnie Coleman train? Monster weights, monster strength!

Did you ever wonder why the guys who partake in World Strongest Man contests aren't uber-ripped like show body builders? The training principles are entirely different.

Being ripped has almost nothing to do with size and everything to do with percentage body fat. Again chalk and cheese, different goals. Having said that Mariusz Pudzianowski is pretty ripped considering he doesn't follow a cutting (ketogenic) diet unlike most body builders.

An increase in strength will not always be accompanied by an increase in size,

Maybe not but there will be a physiological change based on muscle density ligament and bone strength though!

while an increase in size will not necessarily mean you are stronger than a person smaller than you. For exercise purposes, training for either requires a different technique based on resistance, recuperation period, hydration and overall diet.

I think genetics plays a much more important part than training principles, there is very little value comparing individuals in this way. A better approach would be an assessment of an individual's progress over time than comparing them to someone else.

I'm going to gloss over the Dave Draper article, as actually it doesn't say anything to contradict what I said. It also points out that if you're small and want to gain size, carbs are good. Removing the carbs is highlighted there as useful depending on vast size to begin with and a wish to lose fat. I will say that I'm impressed by the men's health article. This is the first time I've read of a study producing these effects, and don't get me wrong, it's been tried before, it's just never worked.

I don’t bother reading these muscle magazine articles either, they are just concerned with filling space and often contradict each other. Best hop over to muscletalk.co.uk, plenty of real life advice over there. There are some big guys over there on ketogenic diets.

I do notice that it doesn't actually list his entire regime. It works in generalities...and that always makes me suspicious with people gaining muscle. Unfortunately, I've grown to learn that if someone gets truely remarkable results, something is often amiss. Without being too cynical, it's not like it's difficult to get your hands on any kind of growth hormone or muscle stimulating products. I know three guys in my gym who deal - it's one of those things.

Completely agree, you’d be naïve to think any top body builder or strongman doesn’t get ‘assistance’, even natural body building contests have been suspect. Kind of begs the question why compare normal diabetics with these kinds of people?

And Ali, again you indicate that we are 'designed'. Unless you believe in the literal creation according to Genesis, that simply isn't true. We adapt and make use of anything. It's one of the wonderful things about organic evolution. Now doubtless, extreme amounts of refined carbohydrate IS dangerous, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about restrained amounts of complex carbs, which research shows to be beneficial.

Notwithstanding the definition of ‘complex carb’ which most people don’t realise is based on a molecular definition -therefore white bread is a complex carb even though it is metabolised as quick as table sugar, a simple carb. I’ve yet to read research that complex carbs offer any more benefit than carefully chosen proteins, fats and fibrous carbs. I have no idea of Ali’s religious views but I would use the word ‘design’ to indicate millions of years of evolution. And that is the key millions of years, not a few hundred since the advent of intensive grain production. We have never ate as much refined carb in our existence as we have in recent years. In evolutionary terms we haven’t even noticed the change yet, let alone adapted to it.

As for carb propoganda? Well, I don't think Muscle and Fitness really gives a hoot about whether you eat carbs or not, given that most of the food suppliments they advertise always highlight that they're high protein and usually carb free. It doesn't change the fact that the vast majority get the best results when carbohydrate is taken after exercise. It produces the fastest recovery time. This has been known for a while, even since before McDonalds took over the world.

Yeah, I suppose there are people who religiously take their glucose with their whey to increase the insulin spike and transport the proteins during their body’s allocated window of opportunity. Most of the big guys I’ve known have never bothered with it. Most if it is smokescreen, articles put out by top athletes to disguise the fact they are using anabolics. They eat big sure but you are comparing normal people with body builders who want unnatural growth. Tell me if it is virtually impossible to put on muscle mass whilst following a ketogenic diet, how come don’t Inuit adults have the same muscle mass as their children? Surely then it would be impossible to grow without carbs.

Now I'm never going to argue that body builders are the picture of health we should all follow. I simply tried to point out that it is not considered possible (albeit, bar that mens health article) to gain muscle without the exercise or carbohydrate. I was simply saying your plateau is not from muscle gain.

But aren’t we comparing bodybuilder ‘growth’ which is extreme and unnatural and normal growth?

And I am so confused by why you're quite happy to accept the dangers of od-ing on carb and protein, but refuse to believe that fat could have similar dangers.

Maybe she has seen the improvements in lipids first hand like the rest of us following low carb.

Are you aware that even something like celery, if eaten in large enough quantities, could kill you. It's the chlorophyll. Everything is dangerous in excess. But that's never what I've advocated...regardless of how much you seem to be arguing as if I were.

What are you advocating? You do realise that this is a low carb forum don’t you?

Anyway, that seems like an awful long post for explanation of one line that I said earlier. I may just stop posting in threads like these. as people like Ali seem to have a huge hissy fit any time I say something that offends their anticarb dogma.

Guess there's no evangelist like a born-again evangelist, eh?

People in glass houses?

 

[Useless Pretty Boy]

I'm only actually going to address two points here, as the rest just seem like too much effort for a monday morning and I have a job application to finish.

I do notice that it doesn't actually list his entire regime. It works in generalities...and that always makes me suspicious with people gaining muscle. Unfortunately, I've grown to learn that if someone gets truely remarkable results, something is often amiss. Without being too cynical, it's not like it's difficult to get your hands on any kind of growth hormone or muscle stimulating products. I know three guys in my gym who deal - it's one of those things.

Completely agree, you’d be naïve to think any top body builder or strongman doesn’t get ‘assistance’, even natural body building contests have been suspect. Kind of begs the question why compare normal diabetics with these kinds of people?[/quote]

That's exactly my point, though. It's uncommon enough when weight training and stuffing your body full of 'cheats'... so how likely is it to happen in a person doing no weight training and not even taking a protein shake in the morning? Suddenly gaining muscle at that rate of fat loss with no training regime?

This whole thing started simply because of a statement which I commented to be unlikely, simply due to the complexities of building muscle on any diet. I've not championed a full-on body builder lifestyle or diet at any point.

Are you aware that even something like celery, if eaten in large enough quantities, could kill you. It's the chlorophyll. Everything is dangerous in excess. But that's never what I've advocated...regardless of how much you seem to be arguing as if I were.

What are you advocating? You do realise that this is a low carb forum don’t you?[/quote]

Yeah, "low", not "no"... I've pointed out several times that I actually fit into the 'low carb' brackets in terms of my daily intake. Yet any time I try to make a suggestion that actually fits into that restrained carbohydrate intake (like, less than 100g a day, say), taken at specific times for specific purposes (such as, for example, muscle building or maintenance, or for a kick-start in the morning when you're naturally low on glycogen anyway), I still get a mouthful of bile spat at me for thinking that a small bowl of pasta or porridge won't do any harm.

Or that's what it feels like. I low carb but I don't hate or deride carbs, which seems to put me at odds with a fair few people here. Thus, conversations like these. Woohoo.

 

[Romola]

Please could we get back to the subject of the thread?

I have found that my plateau is begining to go.

I upped the exercise (although I don't actually do very much compared with many of you) and had a look to see if portion size had inched up a bit (which it had). I cut down on alcohol - so only have one drink 2 or 3 days a week instead of a couple on most days. I still have my square of dark chocolate most evenings though.

I am now just 3 lb off getting to a BMI of under 25, which is my main goal.

After that I will continue to follow a low glycemic load eating regime (never use the "D" word :evil: ) and see how it goes. If I could get down to about 24 I would be even happier - but the good news is that the plateau doesn't have to last for ever.

 

[Doczoc]

I still get a mouthful of bile spat at me for thinking that a small bowl of pasta or porridge won't do any harm.

Bile? Don't you think you are being a little over-sensitive.

Or that's what it feels like. I low carb but I don't hate or deride carbs, which seems to put me at odds with a fair few people here. Thus, conversations like these. Woohoo.

It's not your attitude to carbs that I object to but the tone of your posting. How is it that you feel you can use phrases like 'hissy fit' and 'born again evangelist' and yet seem to feel you have the moral upper hand? I responded to your post which contained dubious factual content that's all. I'm sorry if you consider this a personal attack on you or your attitude to carbs. Maybe we can discuss it further when you've thought up some names to call me?

 

[Doczoc]

Please could we get back to the subject of the thread?

I have found that my plateau is begining to go.

I upped the exercise (although I don't actually do very much compared with many of you) and had a look to see if portion size had inched up a bit (which it had). I cut down on alcohol - so only have one drink 2 or 3 days a week instead of a couple on most days. I still have my square of dark chocolate most evenings though.

I am now just 3 lb off getting to a BMI of under 25, which is my main goal.

After that I will continue to follow a low glycemic load eating regime (never use the "D" word :evil: ) and see how it goes. If I could get down to about 24 I would be even happier - but the good news is that the plateau doesn't have to last for ever.

Sincerest apologies!

I'm glad you've been able to move it on. That's great news!

 

[Useless Pretty Boy]

Maybe we can discuss it further when you've thought up some names to call me?

Actually, I don't think I really referenced you much, if at all.

Back to Romola, then. And well done! Alcohol can often make quite a bit of difference. My dad will usually drop about half a stone or more when he cuts out the red wine for a while.

 

[milesrf]

Have you noticed that the term complex carbs tends to be associated with both bad advice from some people, since it includes types of starch which digest about as fast as table sugar, and good advice from others, since it includes fiber which you don't digest at all, and also includes a few types of carbs in between? I suspect that we could clear up some of the confusion if we stop using that term much at all.

It seems that some of the diabetes experts once decided that all complex carbohydrates would digest slowly if at all and it was a waste of time to do any research to check that idea - but when the research was finally done, it showed that the idea wasn't true for many of the more common types.

 

[milesrf]

Maybe we can discuss it further when you've thought up some names to call me?

Actually, I don't think I really referenced you much, if at all.

Back to Romola, then. And well done! Alcohol can often make quite a bit of difference. My dad will usually drop about half a stone or more when he cuts out the red wine for a while.

Wine actually has a mixture of effects. The alcohol part makes the liver delay converting glycogen into glucose, but it also contains fruit sugars which usually include both glucose, which makes your meter rise quickly, and fructose, which tends to increase insulin resistance and therefore make type 2 diabetes worse, although more slowly.

I've seen elsewhere that some diabetics recommend choosing only dry red wine, since it contains less fruit sugar. I've forgotten the reason for choosing red instead of white, but it was probably less important.

The liver also converts excess carbs into saturated fat and cholesterol - one of the reasons why low fat diets, with no other restrictions, aren't a very good idea.

 

[Doczoc]

Have you noticed that the term complex carbs tends to be associated with both bad advice from some people, since it includes types of starch which digest about as fast as table sugar, and good advice from others, since it includes fiber which you don't digest at all, and also includes a few types of carbs in between? I suspect that we could clear up some of the confusion if we stop using that term much at all.

It seems that some of the diabetes experts once decided that all complex carbohydrates would digest slowly if at all and it was a waste of time to do any research to check that idea - but when the research was finally done, it showed that the idea wasn't true for many of the more common types.

The term 'complex carb' sends a shiver down my back. The number of well meaning individuals who have told me in quietly patronising tones, "No it's complex carbs that you need"

I tend to use the term fibrous carbs, think it's more useful a description. Hardly perfect though!