Printable View
yeah, the low carb tortillas aren't great, but they certainly work as tortillas. Kinda like whole wheat tortillas.
Fruit and beer are the two hardest things for me. I didn't drink much beer before the diet, but damn if I don't miss a nice cold one after a ride.
Next time I catch someone eating a "taco" on a whole wheat tortilla, I'm gonna get all Pulp Fiction on their ass. :mad:
You have to drink a cold one after a ride. It’s good for ya. I think. Feels good. Can’t stop, won’t stop, will never stop, never stop never stopping.
Never been a bread guy, and don't really like fries.
But growing up with access to really good tortillas, just cant deal with the bad ones.
#bromopower #fuelforverbalpugilism
As long as they come from whole food sources I embrace all teh macros. I can easily go through a 15-lb Costco bag of Yukon Golds in 2-3 weeks.
I would consider quality corn tortillas to be an optimal source of carbs, not a cheat. It doesn't hurt that they're quick/easy, versatile, and fucking delicious.
Don’t think I ran across this thread before.
I finally said “fuck the bullshit” about 4-5wks back and went into a Keto-low carb lifestyle. I don’t mess around too much with exact numbers but I think I’m pretty close to being in ketosis most of the time.
I’ve experienced some not so fun digestive issues. My guess is too much fat and protein. Cooled down on the fat and meat slightly. Seems to have improved slightly.
Other than that I’ve been happy with the change. Down about 15lbs which is likely half water weight but at least some shorts are fitting better.
Next step is to stop being glued to my office and home duties. Time to get some real exercise so I can keep up with my kids come ski season!
Just read this article about a study this morning. Says that low-carb is linked to elevated mortality. Sounds like a lot of it is related to heavy consumption of meat, and not really vegetable fats.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/low-carb-...233354036.html
There definitely was a gut adjustment for me. Since the initial period, I have had occasional digestive issues, but they seem (can't know for sure) to be related to dehydration and lack of electrolytes. Mostly went away when I started drinking way more water and making sure I got lots of electrolytes.Quote:
Originally Posted by schwerty
I don't know that I would go so far as call them optimal, but on a 0-10 scale where 10 is kale and 0 is canned cake frosting they're a solid 7. On that same scale I'd put tubers at 8.5 and beans at 7.5.Quote:
Originally Posted by bagtagley
You've likely lost some water due to reduced glycogen storage, but that's 2-3 lbs at most. If you've lost any other "water" weight it's due to a reduction in systemic inflammation which is a damn good thing. It's sort of like if you were to roll your ankle badly, have it swell way up then get better, but dismiss the healing by saying, "That doesn't mean anything, it was just some excess water."Quote:
Originally Posted by schwerty
Good on ya. Losing is easy, maintaining is what's hard.
Full text available here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...135-X/fulltextQuote:
Originally Posted by shredgnar
I always always always recommend reading the actual study or at least the abstract instead of relying on articles from non-hard science sources. It seems to be a bit of a bullshit study:
-Cutoff for the "Low" carb group was 40% of calories. Which is not really what most people would consider a low carb diet.
-They found a U-shaped relationship with a rather narrow range of optimum consumption at 50-55% calories. Mortality levels increased at nearly identical rates at higher carb intakes as they did at lower intakes (pooled hazard ratio 1.20, 95% CI 1.09–1.32 for low carbohydrate consumption; 1.23, 1.11–1.36 for high carbohydrate consumption, per the study). Of course, only the low carb part of that makes it into the headline.
-In an associational study like this, hazard ratios that low are practically meaningless. "Significant" in the strict statistical sense, but not in the way the word is commonly used.
-"Participants who consumed a relatively low percentage of total energy from carbohydrates (ie, participants in the lowest quantiles) were more likely to be young, male, a self-reported race other than black, college graduates, have high body-mass index, exercise less during leisure time, have high household income, smoke cigarettes, and have diabetes."
Yes, the relationship was still statistically significant after controlling for these factors, but those other lifestyle factors are so intractably linked to mortality outcomes it makes the differences in HRs noted above especially meaningless. I'd love to know what the unadjusted HRs were (probably much higher).
-This is my favorite part: This was (yet another) study based on data from FFQs. One of the data points estimated from the FFQs was total caloric intake. So, let's see what that was:
1558, 1655, 1660, 1646, 1607
Self-reported energy intake was 1558-1660 kcal/day across all cohorts! These are people with the following BMIs:
28.0, 27.9, 27.6, 27.6, 27.4
So, people with BMIs of 27-28 are claiming to be consuming ~1,600 kcal/day. Yeah, sure. I think we can safely dismiss their other reported food consumption habits as well. GIGO.
Maybe optimal isn't the best word, but I don't think it's far off in the context of discussing a good source of carbohydrates, metabolic effects notwithstanding. Given their convenience, I was mostly pointing out that they're perfectly fine to eat in moderation, and as part of a balanced, whole-food-heavy diet. I'm also currently digestively limited to a few carb sources, so I put anything made from hominy on a pretty big pedestal. I'm sick to death of white rice, and potatoes aren't far behind.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Agreed there. They're comparatively deficient in micronutrients compared to stuff like tubers, beans and squash, but still much better than white rice or anything wheat flour-based. They should have a decent amount of resistant starch since they've been cooked, cooled and re-heated.Quote:
Originally Posted by bagtagley
Unpossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by bagtagley
Carb lobbyists are fighting back, it was inevitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by shredgnar
And maybe we need a new thread for the elephant in the room...replacing ones now ill-fitting wardrobe. Or is the baggy look still a thing?
FKNA good job you guys. I never weigh myself I’m down at least a step in the visible body scale thing DTM posted pages back. Feeling pretty good also.
Baggy pants and puffy shoes are coming back... along with noseslides and bearing condoms.Quote:
Originally Posted by SkiBall
Just bought a smaller pair of board shorts cuz my regular ones I had to exit carefully. But it almost might be worth hiring a seamstress to take in a number of my pants over replacing. Not all you know, just in case of "winter weight" or knocked into inactivity by a turn of events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontane
Not exactly nutrition but how much water should one drink when working outside in warm/hot dry weather? I got pretty dehydrated yesterday so today I’ve set a timer and I’m drinking a pint every hour.
That’s probably not enough still. Depends how much you sweat and how hard you are working. Line workers in PR were recommended 2-3 gallons per day with electrolytes supplements every other hour. Those were 12 hr shifts.Quote:
Originally Posted by steepconcrete
Thanks. Maybe I’ll up it to every half hour. I’m splitting some heavy 36” oak rounds with a hydro splitter. They are about as much as I can dead lift. Some bigger ones I have to use the front end loader to get up to the splitter.
Any recommendations for electrolights that don’t contain a lot of sugar?
Occasionally I use electrolyte/ salt powder, can be purchased at STP and REI and probably somewhere else far cheaper. Makes water taste really bad.
Hammer Endurolyte tabs or powder. Good shit.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...de=lancet-site
Dietary carbohydrate intake and mortality: a prospective cohort study and meta-analysis
Quote:
Background
Low carbohydrate diets, which restrict carbohydrate in favour of increased protein or fat intake, or both, are a popular weight-loss strategy. However, the long-term effect of carbohydrate restriction on mortality is controversial and could depend on whether dietary carbohydrate is replaced by plant-based or animal-based fat and protein. We aimed to investigate the association between carbohydrate intake and mortality.
Methods
We studied 15 428 adults aged 45–64 years, in four US communities, who completed a dietary questionnaire at enrolment in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study (between 1987 and 1989), and who did not report extreme caloric intake (<600 kcal or >4200 kcal per day for men and <500 kcal or >3600 kcal per day for women). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. We investigated the association between the percentage of energy from carbohydrate intake and all-cause mortality, accounting for possible non-linear relationships in this cohort. We further examined this association, combining ARIC data with data for carbohydrate intake reported from seven multinational prospective studies in a meta-analysis. Finally, we assessed whether the substitution of animal or plant sources of fat and protein for carbohydrate affected mortality.
Findings
During a median follow-up of 25 years there were 6283 deaths in the ARIC cohort, and there were 40 181 deaths across all cohort studies. In the ARIC cohort, after multivariable adjustment, there was a U-shaped association between the percentage of energy consumed from carbohydrate (mean 48·9%, SD 9·4) and mortality: a percentage of 50–55% energy from carbohydrate was associated with the lowest risk of mortality. In the meta-analysis of all cohorts (432 179 participants), both low carbohydrate consumption (70%) conferred greater mortality risk than did moderate intake, which was consistent with a U-shaped association (pooled hazard ratio 1·20, 95% CI 1·09–1·32 for low carbohydrate consumption; 1·23, 1·11–1·36 for high carbohydrate consumption). However, results varied by the source of macronutrients: mortality increased when carbohydrates were exchanged for animal-derived fat or protein (1·18, 1·08–1·29) and mortality decreased when the substitutions were plant-based (0·82, 0·78–0·87).
Interpretation
Both high and low percentages of carbohydrate diets were associated with increased mortality, with minimal risk observed at 50–55% carbohydrate intake. Low carbohydrate dietary patterns favouring animal-derived protein and fat sources, from sources such as lamb, beef, pork, and chicken, were associated with higher mortality, whereas those that favoured plant-derived protein and fat intake, from sources such as vegetables, nuts, peanut butter, and whole-grain breads, were associated with lower mortality, suggesting that the source of food notably modifies the association between carbohydrate intake and mortality.
I saw that too. Kind of pissed me off. Unanswered in the story is the question of whether being 185 pounds eating too much meat is healthier than weighing 220 and eating a bunch whole grains. I know the first guy is happier and having looked at the exponential curve relating BMI with mortality, I suspect he’s healthier too.Quote:
Originally Posted by shredgnar