The 2016 Way Less Objectivity thread

Ancalagon said:
That's not how it works. Google intermittent fasting.

If I ate 1000 calories per day divided into 3 meals, my body would go into starvation mode. Because I only eat once per day, my body stays in the fasted state most of the day.

In fact, studies have shown that when fasting, your metabolism increases, it doesn't slow down.

Do some reading on it.
Click to expand...
I'm also doing IF but the 16\8 version. How many kilojoules are you eating per day?
 
Park@82 said:
I'm also doing IF but the 16\8 version. How many kilojoules are you eating per day?
Click to expand...

I don't know, not usually that much.

I have a protein shake when I get home - I'll have to check, but I think its something like 250 calories. I have that at 4:30PM. Then I have supper. Supper generally consists of 300g of meat of some sort, such as chicken schnitzels, and a large green salad, with olive oil, vinegar and salt. Don't know how many calories that is - maybe 1000 or so. Googling around suggests that 300g of chicken schnitzels would be around 900 calories, and the salad really won't be much, between 100 and 200. Then another protein shake, probably also around 250 calories. I use 2 scoops each of nutritech whey and nutritech casein, so 4 scoops total, around 45g of protein. Plus a few grams of fat and carbs in each shake.

And I have coffee with no sugar, but a little milk, throughout the day.

I exercise when I have the time, generally 4 times per week. Mostly weightlifting, can't do any jogging because of an injury.

Total calories probably around 1600. On weekends I eat more obviously. But even then, I'd be surprised if I ever eat more than 2500 calories per day.

Results: I'm the leanest I've been in over a decade, and its easy for me to keep up.

EDIT: I should point out, I do 16/8 on weekends and 20/24 during the week. I like the convenience of not having to eat or make breakfast or lunch during the week. On weekends, I like to break my fast at around 12 or 1.
 
Ah Ancalagon, you have a shake and supper within close proximity? That might be the issue as I've heard one of the worse meals to have large is supper due to the sedentary pursuits thereafter :D Why not have the shake earlier, replace lunch? That small difference can mean a lot.

My daily work regimen is Shake for breakfast ( 7:15am ) , light salad with small protein ( tuna or chicken ) for lunch ( 11-12am ) and then supper at home around 6pm. I find fiddling with those times can cause quite a swing, anything from around half a kilo to a kilo.
 
Kosmik said:
Ah Ancalagon, you have a shake and supper within close proximity? That might be the issue as I've heard one of the worse meals to have large is supper due to the sedentary pursuits thereafter :D Why not have the shake earlier, replace lunch? That small difference can mean a lot.

My daily work regimen is Shake for breakfast ( 7:15am ) , light salad with small protein ( tuna or chicken ) for lunch ( 11-12am ) and then supper at home around 6pm. I find fiddling with those times can cause quite a swing, anything from around half a kilo to a kilo.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what do you mean by that?
 
Ancalagon said:
Sorry, what do you mean by that?
Click to expand...

Basically supper is large meal and then the next hours are spent generally either relaxing or sleep, hence normally your lowest calorie burning period of the day. By shifting the shake to lunch time, it gives your body the means to burn it off before filling up again with supper, whereas when in close proximity to supper, the body takes longer to burn it.
 
Kosmik said:
Basically supper is large meal and then the next hours are spent generally either relaxing or sleep, hence normally your lowest calorie burning period of the day. By shifting the shake to lunch time, it gives your body the means to burn it off before filling up again with supper, whereas when in close proximity to supper, the body takes longer to burn it.
Click to expand...

Oh.

In my case, I only eat the next day at 4:30PM. So, I have to go 20 hours on that supper and a protein shake.

Having a 20 hour gap in between meals is better for my insulin resistance.
 
I might gain a bit of weight. Need to carbo load for a marathon. Don't worry. It will be temporary.
 
Sinbad said:
Are you lchfing?
If so, carbo loading is a myth.
Click to expand...

No. No LCHF.

Explain your statement that carbo loading is a myth. Because no article I've read and speaking to experienced runners has proven to me that it is a myth.

The only thing that I'm aware of that was disproven is the glycogen starvation before carbo loading.

And carbo loading isn't about binge carbo eating. It is a combo of first eating protein for muscle repair, in combination with tapering and filling your muscles glycogen levels closer to the race. You shouldn't gain more than 1-2kg for that period.
 
My statement was about carbo loading while lchfing. If you're not, it's not relevant.
 
Sinbad said:
My statement was about carbo loading while lchfing. If you're not, it's not relevant.
Click to expand...

Well. That makes a bit more sense :)

It would be interesting to find out how many endurance athletes do LCHF. I can't see that they would be able to. After 1 1/2 hours, you have drained all your glycogen reserves and need to replenish it. And trust me. Eating anything that isn't carbs during a race is a recipe for a disaster.
 
creeper said:
Well. That makes a bit more sense :)

It would be interesting to find out how many endurance athletes do LCHF. I can't see that they would be able to. After 1 1/2 hours, you have drained all your glycogen reserves and need to replenish it. And trust me. Eating anything that isn't carbs during a race is a recipe for a disaster.
Click to expand...

When you're LCHFing you don't run on glycogen so it's irrelevant.
Tim Noakes basically said people should tear out the section on nutrition in his runner's bible, when he figured LCHF out.
 
So I proved that my scale at home is completely bonkers.

I went to the biokineticist yesterday, weighed myself on her digital scale, and it said 85.2kg. So, that is what I weigh, not 82kg.

The numbers don't really matter to me - what matters is that my belly fat is getting smaller. So, now my new goal is 82kg.
 
Ancalagon said:
So I proved that my scale at home is completely bonkers.

I went to the biokineticist yesterday, weighed myself on her digital scale, and it said 85.2kg. So, that is what I weigh, not 82kg.

The numbers don't really matter to me - what matters is that my belly fat is getting smaller. So, now my new goal is 82kg.
Click to expand...

What type of scale? Manual or digital? Try some basic weight tests and check it. But no matter how inaccurate a base of a scale may be, if you lose kilos, you still lose them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X