UKC

I'm training moderately hard at the moment, with two or three sessions in the gym and a couple of sessions at the climbing wall each week, but I'm failing to shift that spare tyre wrapped around my middle. My weight has stayed resolutely steady and I'm now looking to diet to support my training whilst also helping me shed a few pounds.

Can anyone suggest any diets which will work for both losing some pounds and supporting my training at the same time?

Cheers

In reply to aphyx:

Well protein s esential for muscle building and regeneration and carbs a re required to give you the energy to train so notionally just cutting down on fat seems to make sense but I bet its not that simple.

In reply to aphyx:

DO NOT DIET. you can have a healthy diet, this is different to a dieting regime, firstly i would encourage you to do more CV (cardio vascular) work such as running, then if this does not work try cutting processed foods such as ready meal from your diet and move towards more natural foods.

As a last resort just reducing the amount you eat will help, eating many small meals rather than 3 large meals is also beneficial.

In reply to aphyx:

Apparently - leafy greens are the answer (drizzled with some olive oil to get the most out of the vitamins and minerals). As well as vegitables, fruit and some lean meat, fish, chicken.

If your woking out quite hard then dieting is not going to do you much good. Its basically quality compaired to quantity of foods consumed.

If you want to be hard core you could eat your veg raw.

In reply to aphyx:

I was in the same boat as you and I was able to lose weight by cutting out snacks which were usually fruit cereal bars and biscuits with cups of tea. I also eat plenty of carbs and protein on training days.

In reply to Anonymous:

Also get in the habit of checking how many calories and grams of fat, carbs and protein are on the labeling of food. When I pick up a snack now if it has more than 130 calories I'm horrified and put it back on the shelf. I've also found that mackerel has more priotein than tuna.

The problem is getting enough protein and carbs to support my training, without overloading my system, which I seem to be doing at the moment. I don't really want to "diet" as such, I'm looking more for a healthy eating "plan" that'll provide the right elements and help me burn a little more fat.

Increasing my cardio work will certainly help, I know I don't do enough of it and tend to avoid it as I prefer doing strength work. I'm not massively overweight (6'0" and 84kg) but on a recent trip to Font I could really feel those extra pounds. I also have a thyroid condition that makes losing those extra pounds just that little bit more difficult as my metabolism is a bit knackered and doesn't "burn" very efficiently.

Thanks for the suggestions,

Cheers

In reply to aphyx: stop eating bread, rice, pasta, potatoes, corn, chocolate, processed sugar, cereals. also avoid milk & cheese and sources of processed fats. instead live off fresh fruit, veg and meat and drink lots of water. just try it for 2 weeks and see what happens.

In reply to onlytovey: Forget all this low carb, high carb, low protein etc.. Just eat a balanced diet and get some aerobic training done.

Can you bike, run, walk to the wall or gym? It is just like a climbing day then, walk ins and out. If you get 3-4 hours a week of proper exercise you'll see an improvement.

In reply to aphyx:

I think you've answered your own question right there - forget the dieting especially anyone who suggests a low carb diet when you're training, get stuck into the cardio, and if you want your climbing to improve if you can drop one of the gym sessions and do another climbing session per week instead it will do you the world of good.

In reply to onlytovey:

Or he could perhaps try reading this (and many of the other articles on the same site)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/26/controversiesinscience

In reply to davidwright: 4 extra pints of water a day surely wouldnt harm you would it?

In reply to Tyler: Well protein s esential for muscle building and regeneration and carbs a re required to give you the energy to train so notionally just cutting down on fat seems to make sense but I bet its not that simple.

I bet it is though a multi-£billion dieting industry says otherwise. Best to get the protein down your neck as soon after exercise as possible.

In reply to aphyx:

Definitive answer posted many times before originally lifted from Rockclimbing.com by a poster called stow:


"Today, I was asked the following in a private message:

Quote:
I am in search of a proper diet to improve my strength to weight ratio for climbing. Basically, I need to lose weight without losing the energy needed to climb 3 times a week. So, I need to eat more complex carbs and less fat, right (please correct if I am wrong)? Please help in naming some good foods to eat that would fit my needs.


Before I answer the question, a little about my background: I am a graduate-trained nutritional epidemiologist. What that means is that I am trained in the design, analysis, and interpretation of nutritional research studies with human subjects. I've read a good deal of the research on weight loss and am currently working on a paper on the effects of certain diets on body weight for eventual publication. I am also a climber, who, when he decided 4 years ago to get serious about sport climbing, lost 20 lbs. Now, to the question of losing weight without losing strength.

The bottom line for losing weight is that you must create a caloric deficit. That means you must consume fewer calories than you burn. You can do this in two ways: consume fewer calories in your diet or increase the amount of exercise you do. The most effective way is to do both simultaneously.

How to reduce your caloric intake.

In principle you could reduce your total caloric intake in one of two ways: either by eating the same foods you currently do and reducing portion sizes or by reducing intake of certain macronutrients (ie, fat, carbohydrate, or protein). However, one of the challenges of dieting is that when your body senses that it is receiving fewer calories than it is burning, it responds by breaking down both body fat and muscle. For an athlete (and if you are rock climber, you should start thinking of yourself as an athlete), this is disastrous because when you diet you can potentially lose strength. Since we want to increase our strength-to-weight ratio, we want to maintain our muscle mass and lose weight in the form of body fat. The way to accomplish this through diet is to maintain carbohydrate intake, increase protein intake, and reduce fat intake enough to produce a caloric deficit.

We want to increase protein intake because the additional protein offsets the body’s increased rate of muscle breakdown while dieting. The reason it is important to maintain high carbohydrate intake is that the higher the carbohydrate intake, the less muscle tissue is broken down for energy (that is, dietary carbohydrate is muscle sparing). Dietary fat, on the other hand, is not muscle sparing; consequently, your entire reduction in calorie intake should come from reducing your intake of fats.

Let’s assume you are doing aerobic exercise for a half-hour 3 days a week and climbing indoors or out 3 sessions per week (If you are not getting at least this much exercise, you should start. You will find it much easier to lose weight by a combination of diet and exercise than by just dieting). The average female at this level of exercise will probably require about 2000 calories/day to maintain her body weight, while the average male will require about 2500 calories. You should try to consume about 500 to 750 calories per day less than you burn. This should result in losing 1 – 1½ pounds per week. This may seem too slow to some; however, more drastic diets do not work – they are virtually impossible to maintain.

OK, so now you have an idea about how many total calories to eat each day. The next question is how should these calories be distributed among protein, carbohydrate, and fat. My recommendations are the following: 25 – 30% of the total calories in your diet should come from protein, 10 - 20% from fat, and the remainder from carbohydrate. This is a low-fat diet that is relatively high in both protein and carbohydrate, as required to promote retention of muscle tissue. In order to operationalize this diet, you need to become savvy at reading nutritional labels and know that protein and carbohydrate contain 4 calories per gram and that fat contains 9 calories per gram (for those who need to know, it’s 7 calories per gram for alcohol).

So, what to eat.

The challenge in this diet is keeping the protein intake high and the fat intake low. Therefore, you need to look for foods that are very low in fat and high in protein. Ideal foods are the following: beans, white-meat poultry, low-fat fishes (eg, halibut), canned tuna, and soy-based non-fat mock meats (hint: think Trader Joes). You can eat essentially unlimited vegetables, since they are very low in calories. Fruits are essentially all carbohydrate and water and low in total calories, and can (and should) be eaten in moderation. Any grain products you eat should be whole grain, since they are higher in protein, fiber, and micronutrients than their processed counterparts.

Try not to add fat to anything. Throw away your mayonnaise, margarine, butter, and cooking oils. Pure oils such as these contain 120 calories per tablespoon. It is all too easy to turn a healthy, low-calorie salad into an abomination by adding excessive dressing. Instead of mayonnaise on sandwiches, substitute mustard (which is virtually calorie free), or just go without.

Keep a diary of everything you eat. Specifically note the total calories you consume and the total grams of protein in each meal. If, at the end of the day, you didn’t consume enough protein, have a blended shake made from a protein supplement and a piece of fruit in the evening. Buy the cheap soy-protein powder. Let the muscle heads waste their money on designer whey peptides.

I realize that this diet is more quantitative than some people would like. However, in my judgment, counting calories and protein grams is the only way to ensure adequate protein intake while maintaining a low-calorie diet. This is critical for athletes."

In reply to aphyx:
Hi Aphyx, I have found my weight fluctuates with regards to what training phase I am doing, depending on what you are doing may be a reason for your spare tire. Rermember muscle is three times as dense as fat so you could be building muscle...

I am probably my heaviest after 6 weeks of hard bouldering and my lightest after six weeks of endurance.

Changing your diet and working out loads can be soul destroying, if you shifted the emphasis of your training towards mileage and just cut down on massive bowls of rice/pasta/potatoes, substitute this with green leafy veg you will notice a difference.

Plus a couple of simple things you can alter in your life which will make a big difference.

Shop for food after you have eaten (this stops you impulse buying all the special offer pizza's).

Drink a half a litre of semi-skimmed milk & orange juice (not mixed, eugh!!) within 30 mins of completing your training. This improves recovery and you dont feel the need to devour everything you can get your hands on when you get home or to the pub.

Drink your well earned pint of beer after you have eaten your post training meal, not before or with it (this step is quite hard considering you may get your pint in at the bar and sit waiting for you food to arrive). Alcohol is known as "empty calories" as its known for having little nutritional value, you dont want this being the first thing your body has to deal with when its crying for nutrients.

Best way to slim down I found was to plan a climbing holiday and set a reasonable goal to acheive, say go to Kalymnos and redpoint a F6c.

Having to budget your spending shouldn't mean that you go hungry. Just make sure you eat, train and party hard in better more efficient ways...



BTW
One hour of climbing burns about 400-600 calories.. if your calorific intake exceeds your expenditure and your not one of those naturally skinny-eat what I want guys you will put on weight.

In reply to alx:

I completely forgot to add one of my personal maxims.

Treat your body like a really fancy sports car, you dont piss in the tank and expect the same performance as if you pumped it full of super-unleaded...

In reply to Simon Lee:


Bollocks is this a 'definitive answer'. You should read some of the latest research regarding diets which restrict refined carbohydrate.

Shani

In reply to Anonymous:

Hello Chris

Your uncritical enthusiasm for the latests fads (sorry research) in dieting and training is boundless.

In reply to alx:


That seems very high to me, for a non-aerobic activity.


The skinny eat-what-I-want guys aren't exempt from the principle that if your intake exceeds your expenditure, you'll put on weight. Their calorific expenditure is higher, that's all.

In reply to Simon Lee:

A diet low in refined carbohydrate has been recommended since at least the middle of the 1800's. Williams Banting was recommending such an approach around 1865. Hardly what I would call 'the latests fad'.

Your uncritical enthusiasm for calorie counting is matched by your ignorance of dietary history. ;P

In reply to Anonymous:

Was he the one who advocated chewing each mouthful 40 times before swallowing ? If not perhaps we should reinvigourate that one - its time has come !

In reply to Simon Lee:

The Chew Chew - hmmm not quite! Banting was a low refined carber.

Shani

In reply to Anonymous:

Well if he really wants to read bollocks that is exactally what he should do.

In reply to DougG:
Yeap, true the you really do have to eat loads though! I am one of those skinny eat what I want guys, I have yet to find a point that I can eat and put on weight......perhaps I have worms

In reply to alx:


So why are you eating all that green cr@p rather than carbs?

That is rather like trying to fuel your sports car on a mixture of casterol GTX, silicon grease and WD40...

In reply to davidwright:

Or he could read this:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/pp-diet-in-an...

In reply to davidwright:

well doing exactly what i said to do worked for me. I changed my diet as described and lost a stone within a month, and that doesn't involve any calorie counting and i eat whenever i am hungry. i went from 78 to 72 kg where my weight stabilised without doing any additional exercise. i've been eating like it for over a year now and i am fitter, stronger and healthier than i have ever been. if i am strict with it, i'm not usually, and i chuck in a bit of cardio i get pretty lean; at my lowest by body weight hit 70 kg this summer. previously i had been eating a "balanced" diet and had been doing loads of cardio and it made no difference to my weight.

all i can say is that if you are looking to lose weight then this is one way that you can do it. try it for 2 weeks and if you haven't lost weight by the end of those 14 days then try something else.

there are plenty of arguments for both sides of low carb debate and the only way your going to get an answer is by trying it for yourself for a time period long enough to allow a change to occur.

if you want some info then email me and i'll send you some properly refereed papers from scientific journals.

In reply to davidwright:

I reckon that a diet good enough for an olympic gymnast is more than adequate for rock climbing activities:

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/5317716/

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to davidwright: Sorry Dave, I dont mean completely forego eating carbs but limit them to a normal balanced meal.

In reply to Anonymous: Is climbing an anaerobic sport though? Bouldering perhaps - grit routes maybe anything else - I guess not.

It would be useful to know what grades you and Onlytovey climb as I'm sure diet doesn't make much difference in terms of recovery etc if you're training for a hard day at HVS...

In reply to TimS:


Yes.

In reply to onlytovey:

Sounds interesting. Perhaps you could post a typical days eating then? Do you just do this for two weeks or maintain for the long term?

In reply to onlytovey: I strongly suggest you read all the stuff on that site I linked to before you keep posting bollocks accross the net.

In reply to Anonymous:

Or he could follow the diet of an olympean who actually won something...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7562840.stm

In reply to davidwright:

onlytovey, I strongly suggest you read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes and you will then be confident in the knowledge that it is DavidWright who is 'posting bollocks accross the net'.

Your successful experience with a diet low in refined carbohydrate is entirely consistent with a brace of recent research papers supporting such a nutritional approach.

DavidWright, could you point out what is actually wrong with a diet low in refined carbohydrate?

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to davidwright:

Fantastic. I dont read the Guardian but it must be worth it just for these articles by Goldacre.

In reply to Simon Lee:

...and Charlie Brooker's Screenburn. All Goldacre's articles are available on his site:

http://www.badscience.net/

He also has a book in the pipeline.

In reply to Anonymous:


Chris/Shani

You make yourself the hapless victim of that endless conundrum - how do you decide between conflicting theories which have been proved with evidence between two sets of experts when you are not an expert yourself.
I diagnose that you are suffering from an acute case of latest book syndrome. A dose of suspended judgenment is in order and less respect for experts and evidence taken at least twice a day. Nurse - pass the pills.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Probably the same way you do.

First of all, why do you follow the diet you do? Why do you give the weight-loss dietary advice you do? How have you decided that the advice you give is correct?

A few years ago, having followed a calorie restricted, low-fat diet (not unlike that you posted above), coupled with lots of running, I found that I might lose weight temporarily but would eventually put it back on. I found my energy levels fluctuated and I was constantly hungry. I discovered an alternative approach to nutrition (similar to onlytovey's post above), read around the subject (just as I did with with the when following the dietary approach that YOU suggested above), and experimented.

The results were startling - I lost fat, had high energy levels and never have to go hungry. I have had several check-ups over these last few years (cholesterol etc...) and all have come back as normal.

I have since recommended the diet to about 10 people - all of whom have had the same success.

You make yourself the hapless victim of that endless conundrum - why stick with a traditional fat loss diet that forces you to persist in a state of hunger. I diagnose that you are suffering from an acute case of poor research syndrome. A dose of updated research and personal experimentation is in order and less respect for diets that lead to yo-yo weight issues - at least twice a day. Nurse - pass the pills.

Shani.

In reply to Anonymous:
Simon Lee
Best Onsights
Sport - F7b+
Trad - E5

Worked Grades
Sport - F8a+

Shani
Best Onsights
Sport - ?
Trad - ?

Worked Grades
Sport - ?

This is data I need to help me know which one of you speaks from a greater authority WRT climbing - 'having high energy levels' is a relative thing. Why is all of that written in the past tense - do you not have high energy any more?

In reply to Anonymous:

So he could take his dietary advice from an advert...

typical of the kind of sh!te that is routinely posted on these threads by quacks and their deciples.

In reply to Anonymous:

So the fount of all knowledge is "eat yourself fat while making me very rich" by A.N Other-Quack



Read the thread you pr@t I already have in a post about 4 hours ago....

In reply to TimS:

Simon Lee climbs way harder than me! I think he held my ropes on Consenting Adults which (IIRC) I RP'd after dogging to the top, followed by two TR attempts.

Family commitments etc... have got in the way of my climbing for the past year or two.

Difficulty is relative - McClure probably sweats a lot less on an 8a than I do on a 7a.

In reply to aphyx:

I have just eaten chocolate. Thought I'd just share that...

In reply to Anonymous:

I give it because calorie counting has lasted the test of time. I dont diet seriously but I am more aware of what I eat and if I see it edging upwards I try to stop eating dairy products, bread and chocolate and if really pushed alcohol and I gleaned that as a watered down version of what I pasted by Stow and my weight has been much more stable as a consequenmce than a few years ago rather than yo-yo as you put it and I have got stronger as well through more effective training. Previously I was more despairing abourt weight control which I was putting down to an inevivatable consequence of middle-age. I lack the discipline and motivation to diet as Stow recommends seriously and follow it properly. I have posted that dieting advice several times over the past couple of years and it has never been seriously challenged or should I say challenged by someone I take seriously. You have form when it comes to over-enthusiasm in faddish training and dieting regimes and other topics - do I have to link them ?

In reply to Anonymous:

Unfortunately it is pretty absolute when it comes to climbing grades - if you found me someone who climbed at Simon's level and supported the low carb diet it would be more convincing as an alternative diet for climbing performance, however all of the people I know who climb hard subscribe to a balanced, low fat, (fairly) low booze diet and do well out of it. But perhaps them and I are missing out?

In reply to davidwright:

And yet 'eating ourselves fat' is not the experience of onlytovey or myself (amongst others).

This is simply an ad hominen attack on Taubes. He has an excellent reputation as a science journalist (equal to Goldacre).

You have not read his book have you? It is not a 'diet book'. I am suprosed that your ignorance of Taubes work has not stopped you criticising it.



I did. The post did not seem to deal with either Taubes' work nor the principle of a diet low in refined carbohydrate.

In reply to alx:

That point is when you reach 30 years old...

In reply to Simon Lee:

If you have time I would welcome you linking to anything I have posted about diets low in refined carbohydrate.

I don't diet seriously either. Eating the way I do now has resulted in me being very lean with lots of energy. I stray from the dietary approach on occasion (the odd beer or ice cream), but I find it a very easy way to stay lean as I do not have to count calories.

For all my over enthusiasm, how come it appears to work for onlytovey? How come it works for me? You may not view me as serious, but Gary Taubes is a serious journalist and his book is as serious a read as you are likely to find.

Calling the 'paleo' diets faddish are just weak ways of discrediting them. I know plenty of people who have yo yo dieted using your approach which suggests it has NOT stood the test of time. It might have short term gain, but is not a long term solution.

Shani

In reply to TimS: This is data I need to help me know which one of you speaks from a greater authority WRT climbing


Sorry Tim that's rubbish - the level I climb at is pretty much irrelevant. In a sense you are falling into a similar illogical trap to Shani. IIRC David Wright hasnt climbed hard routes (his main achievenents are in running) but I think his knowledge on training principles is greater than mine for example. Similarly I know exceptional climbers who know hardly anything about training.

In reply to Anonymous: Calling the 'paleo' diets faddish are just weak ways of discrediting them. I know plenty of people who have yo yo dieted using your approach which suggests it has NOT stood the test of time. It might have short term gain, but is not a long term solution.


I guess I am discrediting you rather than them. In the fullness of time you may be proved right but in a world of information the way you protagnise things is offputting to say the least and my gut tells me that it is not time worth researching. The Stow diet advice falls into the 'good enough for me' category and I suspect 99% of the climbing population as well so I do not feel compelled to look further as there seems to be no advantage. If I decided to follow the diet more avidly and found it wanting than I might seek info elsewhere.

You may have to settle for being paradigm-shifting genius who was never truly appreciated in their time.

In reply to davidwright: dear david,

please direct me to those specific points i have made that you consider to be bollocks and i'll respond appropriately. and as far as reading references go I personally prefer to take my information from non-colloquial sources like those suggested and i am yet to find any papers that have warned me against the dangers associated with eating fruit, vegetables and lean meat. if your aware of some then i'd love to know.

as far as my grade goes i bumble around 7a ish. my ticklist is in my logbook.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I am going to print this f@@ker out and read it back to you when you are above gear and I am holding your ropes! Talking of which - when are you next down the wall?

In reply to Anonymous:

Oh dear - you were one of my favourite belayers too - the others are usually lighter than me...

In reply to Simon Lee:


Fair do's however it is useful to know when people are talking about their personal experience with these diets, rather than the diets in general i.e if Patxi said that he's stopped eating carbs and started crushing 9a's then it would make for interesting anecdotal evidence.

In reply to Simon Lee:


That's because every time I shag your wife she gives me a biscuit.

In reply to Anonymous:

Posted this on another thread but may help someone?

Just from my experience in the last 3 months:

No climbing for last two years.
5ft 11 / 38 yrs old
1st May weight 88 kgs
1st Aug weight 80 kgs
1st Sept weight 78 kgs

Just come back from bouldering in Piedmont and managed a 6c problem. Nothing sprecial but I was happy.

2 gym sessions a week (heavy weights / low reps (6 down to 1)) for 45 minutes each
1 boulder session per week for 1 hour
No additional areobic exercise

Diet per day (with a bit of cheating at weekends)
Porrige and banana
Chicken Sandwich + wholemeal bread
Nuts, cheese, wholemeal crackers
Train: gym or boulder
Protein drink
Chicken (Steak) + salad (vegies)
Protein drink (sometimes)

Bouldering grade (level at local hall B1 – B5)
1st May All B1s, and maybe 50% of B2s
1st Aug All B1s, All B2s, and maybe 75% of B3s

Pullups
1st May 1 full pullup / hands facing away from face
1st Aug 5 full pullup by 5 sets (so 25 in total) hands facing away from face

In reply to Anonymous:

So I was vastly overstating his creadentials when I called him a quack then...

In reply to Anonymous:

Soggy ones I gather for your balanced diet.

In reply to Simon Lee:

20 minutes! Not bad!

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to aphyx:

I like to think i eat a healthy diet, though i would like to loose a little poundage maybe get me down to 60kg. However when i cut down on my food intake i always feel hungry

In reply to Anonymous:

I have read work by Taubes when it has been posted on these threads and have found it to be very low quality advocative writing of the kind routinely taken apart in bad science. BTW Goldacre's credentials don't rest on being a writer as I understand the matter he is a medic who writes as a hobby. Nor does the prevelance of dietary articles reflect any particular hobby horse of his (read the articles and you will find that the axe he has to grind is poor reporting standards in clinical trials and cr@p lazy journalism). The number of articles about diet in the bad science archive is just a consequance of the amount of garbage written on the matter.

I have not posted a detailed critisism of low carb diets on here for much the same reason that I wouldn't post a detailed criticism of an atlas produced by the flat earth society however a post up thread does make quite clear my general feelings on the matter for those who are not hard of understanding

In reply to davidwright:

please can you explain what you think is wrong with 'green crap' as part of a healthy balanced diet.

After all, man cannot live on pasta alone, right?

In reply to Anonymous: 20 minutes! Not bad!


Unlike you I dont come too quickly

In reply to dhuhkosi:

Now heres the key point for those hard of understanding, what evidence do you have that any other diet with the same total calorie intake combined with the same training program would not have produced the same results?

For most if not all people* reading this energy balance is the only thing they need to concren themselves with. Meet that and performance as climbers will be determined by their natural ability and their training. The source of those calories is more or less irrelevent.

that world view is too deterministic for a lot of people so they waste money time and effort by reading and then following the advice in "how snake oil will make you fat/stupid/week** and me rich" by Dr D Duck Dq.

this is how a lot of smart people make a very large amount of money by waving a stick about and claiming to make people bullet proof.

personally I prefer to live in world where william of occham is clean shaven.

*that does not include those depriving themselves of major nutrients on the advice of Dr Duck

**delete as opposite your aim....

In reply to davidwright:

if you haven't already read it, this might be of interest to you: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trick-Treatment-Alternative-Medicine-Trial/dp/05930...

In reply to Tall Clare:

Metaphorical argument is obviously a bit complex for you isn't it?

In reply to davidwright:

oh do f*ck off, you pompous arse.

go on, explain yourself.

In reply to davidwright:

"...Now heres the key point for those hard of understanding, what evidence do you have that any other diet with the same total calorie intake combined with the same training program would not have produced the same results?..."

Absolutely none. Like I said, this worked for ME. It MAY help someone else? I've been climbing and going to the gym on and off for 20 years. So perhaps the only person around here with understanding difficulties is YOU?

In reply to dhuhkosi:

David's seems to be becoming notorious around these parts for his manner. I think he talks some sense but makes some unsubstantiated claims and seems curiously reticent to qualify them, choosing instead to hide behind bluster.

That said, in retrospect, i shouldn't have posted what I did last night.

I agree with your point that if it works for you... surely that's the key measure for any of us?

In reply to Tall Clare:


>> That said, in retrospect, i shouldn't have posted what I did last night.

I’m not sure – certainly bought a smile to my face this morning – thank you

>> I agree with your point that if it works for you... surely that's the key measure for any of us?

Exactly. Who cares about the latest scientific research and test studies on mice. Try it – if it works great, if not stop.

In reply to DougG:


Its a similar level to that quoted in the Rockfax Sportclimbing+ book.

Bear in mind that thats for moving continuously for an hour, and how many of us do stamina sessions which last an hour? I imagine most people spend an amount of their hour chatting or belaying.....

AJM

In reply to aphyx: I also have a thyroid condition that makes losing those extra pounds just that little bit more difficult as my metabolism is a bit knackered and doesn't "burn" very efficiently.
`

I have only just picked up on this. You should consultant a Nutritionist via your doctor if you have a medical condition. Upping your training and significantly altering your diet at the same time is a difficult balance (ie probably best avoided)for people without medical problems, let alone with them.

In reply to davidwright:

davidwright, can you please identify some of these threads you mention which quote Taubes sufficiently for you to determine his work to be "very low quality advocative writing"?

Regards,
Shani

In reply to tlm:

I'm 38 and am fitter than i've ever been. The only thing anyone needs for a healthy body and enough stamina to continue, and indeed improve in any sport or pastime is a healthy, balanced diet. Now, we're not silly and we all know what does and doesn't constitute healthy when selecting food

Less fat and sugar, more fresh fruit and veg and pulses and lean meats and fish and pastas and rices and..we all Know the good stuff. Just, the bad stuff is full of shit to make the taste almost addictive and i think if people are always aware that if it tastes too good almost?....

In reply to davidwright: "energy balance is the only thing they need to concren themselves with. Meet that and performance as climbers will be determined by their natural ability and their training. The source of those calories is more or less irrelevent."

I have been following your comments and tussles you have been having with other contributors to this forum with interest. Two things strike me. First, that you enjoy disagreeing with people who appear to believe they have a well-grounded point of view and second that you are too lazy to fully research the claimed grounding before you take an opposing view. You talk a good game, but ultimately have two left feet.

The statement 'The source of those calories is more or less irrelevent,' also caught my attention. I am not going to cite research or authors, draw comparisons or propose metaphors to back up what I am about to say, because you will dismiss my sources as quacks and any well-reasoned arguments no doubt will be treated with equally ill-informed contempt. I will simply say that the statement is patent nonsense, and it's possible that you know it, but are simply having far too much fun annoying everyone to admit it

In reply to Simon Lee:
Thanks for this, very informative. i have followed a diet very similar to what you suggest here, since January and have reduced my wieght from 200 lbs to 166lbs. i have also increased the amount of exercise i do. i have noticed a significnat improvment in my strength and stamina and i now climb as well as i did in my 20s (i am in my 40s now).

I agree 1 to 1.5lbs a week weight loss is a realistic target, keep an excel spreadsheet to plot this.

Although i am still sticking to this diet, i have not lost anymore weight for about 4 weeks.
Is this because i have reached my natural bodywieght and i am now eating the correct number of calories to maintain this?

I guess the answer now is to train harder?

In reply to dhuhkosi:

Over the last 6 months I have slaughered a goat in a left handed crowely pentagram on the last tuesday before the new moon. over that time my weight has 30kg and my climbing grade gone up from 6a to 9c....

How is that statement logically any different from what you posted?

You actually have no evidence what so ever that the diet had had any effect at all. This is a single uncontrolled observation and as such is essentially meaning less. Either we need another you who follows a diet with the same calorie count but a different balance of sources who follows the same training plan which will isolate the diet as a factor or we can use very large numbers of people and thus reduce changes in genetics, training ect to random noise and then we might with a bit of luck be able to isolate the effect of diet from all the other things that might have contributed.

Thus ends the recap of what you should have known by the end of the third form.

In reply to Anonymous:

All of it. Mainly because his central hypothisis makes a lot of peridictions none of which hold water.

In reply to davidwright:

Again, can you please identify some of these threads you mention which quote Taubes sufficiently for you to determine his work to be "very low quality advocative writing"?

Regards,
Shani

In reply to davidwright: Do you think similar effects would be achieved if the goat was replaced with a carrot? There must be a vegan alternative for this revolutionary breakthrough!

In reply to davidwright:

What actually is his "central hypothisis" [sic]? In which thread did you read about his "central hypothisis" [sic]?

In reply to Tall Clare: My meaning was very clear to anybody who has a brain and is prepared to use it. If you did not understand that statement then you really have to rethink your ideas on nutrition from the ground up.

lets start from the beginning shall we what are the most important nutrieants in the human diet?

In reply to davidwright:

do you find that your tone helps people to engage with you on any but the most base level?

you really are quite offensive.

If you could focus on answering Shani's question, which you seem to be attempting to avoid, that would be great.

You do understand that, don't you?

In reply to aphyx:
Drink coffee before and during training.

In reply to Anonymous:

If you can't stand up the central tenant of your ideas I am not going to be bothered to find the exact post where you quoted the inane witterings of Dr D Duck Dq.

In reply to davidwright:
For someone who assumes he has a brain, it's "tenet" not "tenant".

In reply to Simon Lee:

Si, you might be interested to know that Nasim Taleb (author of 'The Black Swan') follows a 'paleo diet' (as practiced by Art DeVany, whose site I have linked to in previous threads). You might find this interesting:

http://knackeredhack.com/2007/05/15/caveman-lunch-with-taleb/

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to davidwright:

So you haven't read Taubes' book. You claim to have 'read work by Taubes when it has been posted on these threads' and attribute such postings to me.

How can you claim to have read someone's work when you have at best read extracts? Furthermore, AFAIK I have never quoted 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' on a UKClimbing thread.

Your argument really is piss poor. I think Methuselah is right, you are actually trolling.

In reply to davidwright:

>>Either we need another you who follows a diet with the same calorie count but a different balance of sources who follows the same training plan which >>will isolate the diet as a factor

Ok since the beginning of this year, I write down in my diary everything I eat and all the training I do.

Jan – May: I must have been eating close to 2500 calories (I can list what I was eating if you want). I followed the exactly the same training as already noted. Break down 30% protein, 50% carbs, 20% fat

May- Sept: Changed just my diet to around 2500 calories per day and upped the protein. Break down 50% protein, 20% carbs, 30% fat

In the period Jan – May, my weight went up to 88.8kgs and my bouldering grade remained the same. In fact, I was having problems due my weight.

Any better?

Like I said this is my story. This happened too ME. Naturally, others would get different results.

In reply to Tall Clare:

I wouldn't get too worked up by davidwright.

He bizzarely claims to have read a 450 page scientific book "when it has been posted on these threads" - and provides no quotes. He goes on to use this as a basis to criticise the author (Gary Taubes) as employing 'very low quality advocative writing' (again based on some mystery quotes).

Oddly he then goes on to claim Taubes' "central hypothisis [sic] makes a lot of peridictions none of which hold water" and then when I asked him what Taubes central hypothesis was he posts that "if [I]can't stand up the central tenant [sic] of [my] ideas [he] am not going to be bothered to find the exact post."

What I don't get about this last point is that he claims knowledge of Taubes' central hypothesis and then go on to claim that these are my ideas!

I think he must be at least mildly embarrassed by his contribution to this thread - hence his offensive tone of language. Often such wild attacks are a form of projection, hiding a deeper issues.

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to Anonymous:

I haven't read a 450 page book, but will attempt to be more polite than Dave.

Being a simple engineer, anything that contravines the laws of thermodynamics is generally suspect. So do you have any evidence that these low carb diets are not simply just calorie deficient? I know detailed examinations of the Atkins diet simply showed people consumed fewer calories because all that fat / protien made them feel fuller and the choice of foods is restrictive. A cursory look at the Zone diet shows that it just has less calories than needed for a person of a given size. Hey presto, weight loss.

Also to be considered, there's lots of evidence that low carb diet's are detrimental to endurance performance. I guess the question is would it be detrimental to climbing performance. Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the type of climbing.

However, I'm genuinely interested in the low(er) carb milarky. Especially not feeling hungry lots of the time.

Now, where did I put that pork pie?

In reply to Wibble Wibble:

There is certainly nothing involving the law of thermodynamics! Let me just say that I am loathe to pick on a particular 'brand' of diet - I don't know what the Atkins Diet specifically involves and so can't comment on it in particular. I prefer the generic term 'paleo diet'.

I posted recently on a study in Israel that seems to show that paleo diets are more satiating due to their higher fat and protein content:

(http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229)

You can kind of test this out for yourself. Next time you go out for a meal eat as much steak and vegetables as you can - to the point of being 'stuffed' and unable to face any more....then look at the desert menu. Most people can always find room for sugary food - even when 'full', in a way they are unable to do on protein or fat.

With regard to paleo diets and endurance, the link above to the gymnast article shows that you can perform demanding work and paleo based nutrition will be ample for your needs (which I reckon includes most climbing activities).

If you are performing long endurance work then I agree - refined carbohydrate will be required. Loren Cordain has done a lot of research around this - he is one of the 'gurus' of paleo diet research, and in his book 'The Paleo Diet for Athletes' recommends endurance athletes consume refined carbs (albeit at key times in their training).

The wider point about benefits of the paleo diet concern the hormone insulin. Insulin is at the root of fat storage (that is why people with Type 1 Diabetes can eat loads and lose weight - they produce little if any insulin).

Rather than fixating on calories in = calories out or laws of thermodynamics, the weight loss with a paleo diet is premised on hormonal changes (chiefly insulin and upregulation of sensitivity to it).

Gary Taubes book 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' looks at the history and science of modern nutritional advice and deals with a lot of the dietary research over the past 60 years. He covers insulin in detail. I must add that it is not a diet book - he does not advocate a paleo diet - that is not his remit, he simply looks at the quality of dietary research and questions some of the conclusions reached. I'd recommend you read the book rather than searching the threads on UKC for quotes.

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to Wibble Wibble:


Hmmm.... not exactly a challenge!

I'm interested in this not feeling hungry thing. I looked at my typical diet a wee while ago, I reckon I typically get about 70% of my calories from carbs. I eat very little meat, almost none in fact. I'm permanently fkn starving, like right now in fact.

Weight has been fairly stable, give or take a couple of kg, for 3 years, so it's not as if I'm not eating enough.

In reply to DougG:

Wot you need is a sugar sandwich

In reply to Jo Horne:

Naaah, I'm sweet enough

In reply to DougG:

DougG - I was really skeptical at first I mean climber are often paranoid about weight (fat), and it seems logical to think that eating fat makes you fat. But after years of eating wholemeal/wholegrain carbs, low fat - and running - I realised that I was not as lean as I thought I should be given that I was doing a lot of cardio and watching my portions. My energy would fluctuate and I was always f*cking starving. I knew that something was wrong.

I simply decided to experiment with the paleo approach for a couple of weeks. I was absolutely blown away. I have now ditched running and am never hungry - yet I am leaner than ever. I don't have energy fluctuations and have had several medicals over the past two years all of which have come back as 'normal'. I advised a few friends and people through UKC to try the same and they ALL have had the same results.

If you live near the Peak then I am happy to meet up to discuss things further - but I would recommend you at least give the paleo plan a try. I mean, what are you risking by experimenting?

Cheers,
Shani.

In reply to aphyx:

if i ever want to shift weight i swap beer for wine.

In reply to Wibble Wibble: I'm a dedicated low-carber and two weeks ago managed to cycle from cardiff to brecon and back on my mountain bike, totaling 90 miles, in the day. i felt pretty good at the end of it. my mate who openly criticises my diet, who eats a high carb diet and who i train with regularly was a mess and could barely make it home. and as far as making a difference to climbing goes, yes it does. i now climb harder with greater ease than i used to before i ditched the seeds.

if you are interested then find out the answers by doing it for yourself. if you switch and then suddenly become fat, unhealthy and unable to walk up stairs unaided then feel free to shoot it down. but until then your opinions carry limited weight.

In reply to DougG: I eat very little meat, almost none in fact. I'm permanently fkn starving, like right now in fact.


You should eat meat - its good for you. Talking or thinking about dieting makes you feel hungry which is another reason I try to not think about it too much. To keep it simple if I need to shift some weight I just stop eating snacks, bread and dairy products and guzzling wine and weight drops.

Fortunately I like muesli - a lot. I have Jordans original muesli which I eat with Oatley - an oat-based milk substitute. I eat it at breakfast and lunch and it is filling and a normal evening meal (usually meat/two veg). I have recently taken to eating boiled eggs after power/strength training for protein.

In reply to Anonymous:

Cheers, Shani. I'm up in Aberdeenshire, though. More a runner than a climber, hardly ever climb these days. So I probably need more carbs?

I am interested though. But I think the biggest problem for me would be that I don't actually like meat that much!

In reply to onlytovey:

That is one of the upsides I have found. I feel much more able to dip in to fat stores for energy rather than having the debilitating hunger-shakes I used to get as a grain eater. I can fast for 24 hours now without much of a problem - even on a training day. There is no way I could do this before.

By the way, IIRC weren't you one of my converts? I am sure I have some emails from you archived away.

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to aphyx:

I think there's a chance that a number of people are right in this thread!

Clearly there are many ways to lose weight that work. It's simple science that to reduce calorific intake below calorific expenditure then your body has to look to itself to obtain the requisite energy. Whatever diet you choose has to have this element, I'd have thought. The composition of the diet seems most controversial, whether you keep carbs, protein and fat in the same proportions but smaller portions, up the relative level of protein and reduce fat, or whatever.

For bouldering, which needs intense short bursts of energy (comparable to gymnastics, as posted above) perhaps a higher proportion of protein in the diet (which is still on a calorie deficit) is preferable. The sugars and carbs present in protein which provide energy are simpler in structure, and easier for the body to break down, and thus amenable to shorter, more intense workouts.

However, for endurance exercise, like long trad and alpine routes and perhaps even sustained sports routes, complex carbs which are broken down over a longer period and thus provide energy over a longer period are perhaps more beneficial, and so should be in a greater proportion in the diet of someone training for these disciplines?

I have a general knowledge of sports training and nutrition gleaned from days as a fitness instructor and an interest in the topic. I don't offer any specific studies to back this up but it seems like common sense?

In reply to onlytovey:


I didn't have an opinion, I had questions.

Your personal experience, whilst interesting, also carries limited weight as your comparison of with your friend takes no account of the wide generic variation in aerobic performance. Research suggests you'd have done even better if your diet had included more cakes

In reply to RockSteady:

The thing is that as onlytovey pointed out with his 90 mile bike ride and as I have found out (not least with training in a fasted state), you can do quite long physical sessions as a paleo eater. Even on sport routes.

But, going back to the work of guys like Loren Cordain, if you are going to do successive days of heavy endurance or run a marathon - then you should incorporate grains. The thing with Cordain's work is that he does not say to chose one or the other - he concludes that timely mixing of the two approaches is the most beneficial to endurance athletes.

I would quote Cordain but then davidwright will probably use it to claim he has read the book.

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to Anonymous:

As you can probably tell my main interest is endurance. Mark Twight has some interesting thoughts on the role of fat metabolism in long endurance activity. And that eating more fat in your general diet helps encourage this.

http://www.gymjones.com/knowledge.php?id=17

I was out for a 5ish hour run in the hills at the weekend and had the aforementioned pork pie. It didn't help

In reply to RockSteady, DougG and any other runners out there:

Dean Kernazes seems to follow Cordain's model of 'carbing' whilst running, but eating a paleo diet when not training.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/ultraman.html?pg=1&topic=ultra...

Shani.

In reply to Anonymous:

I'll have a look at this, but I was reading a study of cyclists last week comparing low and high carb diets. The ones on higher carb diets performed markedly better, even when the low carb dieters took carbs during exercise. Typically, I can't find the link.

In reply to Wibble Wibble:

Yeah, again harking back to Cordain's work, if you are in to endurance and lots of it, grain will take the strain. I'd have to see the link to comment further.

I think for most if not all rock climbing activities (even multi pitch), you can perform optimally on a paleo diet - with an added advantage of an improved strength to weight ratio.

In reply to Anonymous: indeed i am one of your converts. its been about 14 months now and i'm probably about 80% faithful, although, i am going full on orthodox for a few weeks, i want a nice shiney six pack in time for my birthday. been doing the odd single day fast and they don't pose too much of a problem and the week after tends to be a pretty good one for climbing performance. i usually have a very light brekfast and then do an hour or so of moderate exercise on the fingerboard and then go about my day. hunger doesn't seem to be a problem and i can carry on till pretty late before eating.

i'm bringing a few others round as well lately and they are all seeing the exact same results.

In reply to onlytovey:

Excellent news. So in conclusion - you are never hungry, are lean and mean and climbing better than ever? That is pretty much my story as well.

I am sure serial dieters who follow the Stow advice couldn't stick to their diet for 14 months - certainly not without being hungry, suffering from fluctating weight and seeing their performance undulate accordingly.

Have you been to the doctors for a check up? I have been for three checkups over two years - just becuase the wife/family/friends come out with the usual "everyone knows that saturated fat is bad for you" line. I figured that if the doctor gave me the all clear then the wife/family/friends would have less cause for complaint. I have made the results (including my cholesterol and bloods) available to them and they have had to agree that I am indeed in fine fettle. My doctor keeps questioning why I turn up when I am 'obviously in good health'.

I find it really odd that despite the draw backs of calorie counting (not least the hunger), climbers of all people are so against the paleo diet. I mean climbers are in to training and often in to dieting, they take risks, they are in a weight dependent sport, are keen to push their grade and often nose around in research.

The resistance to paleo eating seems to be based upon fear of fat - that it will make you fat and clog up your arteries. But there is enough research out there to question this 'conventional wisdom'. Despite these 'fears' - I would have thought climbers would take the 'risk' of trying this diet for the benefits it is claimed to (and indeed does), bring.

Despite the personal attacks levied against me, I am glad that at least a few people have followed up the various links I have posted over the years and experimented for themselves. It actually says a lot that attempts are made to discredit me rather than the science. (No doubt this exchenage will be seen as some form of sock-puppetry).

I am glad things are going so well for you. I might well hassle you for some route beta when I am next in your neck of the woods!

Shani.

In reply to Anonymous: Do you think never being hungry is a healthy thing? That just sounds like you're a bit backed up!

In reply to TimS:

I should qualify the comment. As I put above, when I was a grain eater I would feel hungry and then soon after get the hunger shakes. The hunger was a kind of constant gnawing.

As a paleo eater, the hunger is actually more of a mild signal, so mild that I don't it doesn't really distract me unless I think about it - and is certainly not 'debilitating' unlike suffering from hunger-shakes.

I take it as much to be a signal that I am accessing my fat stores, rather than a signal to eat.

Shani.

In reply to Anonymous: Makes sense I guess. I've looked at a few links etc but could you post up an 'average' daily meal intake as a paeleo eater?

Tim

In reply to Anonymous: I am sure serial dieters who follow the Stow advice couldn't stick to their diet for 14 months

Genius. Im sure Stow or anybody in fact would agree that anybody engaged in physical training would be unlikely to be 60-90lbs overweight in the first place.

In reply to TimS:

I don't normally eat until lunchtime or late in to the afternoon. That meal would normally be a large salad (no dressing) and some fish - sardines or mackerel and maybe a few boiled eggs. Maybe the odd bit of cheese. The salad will be mixed and have a seasonal emphasis.

An alternative lunch would be a load of mixed nuts (hazelnuts, walnuts, pecans, brazil and almonds) and some fruit (but at most, one banana). Again I try to go for seasonal fruit.

My evening meal would usually comprise of a large (grass fed) steak or half a roast (free range) chicken with a side order of (usually seasonal) veg. I will save the fat from the chicken and use the white stuff to fry and roast veg with. The rest is used as a stock for soup. The soup is usually made with seasonal veg (again!) and I will freeze it in portions to use if I need to eat quickly of an evening. The soup will be jazzed up with some meat/fish (for example sardines).

At the weekend when I have access to a cooker, I will have a late breakfast (or early lunch) fry up. This usually consists of 8 rashers of bacon, several tomatoes, a load of mushrooms and about four eggs - all fried in the chicken fat saved from the above.

I don't do calorie counting or measuring of volumes. I guess I only eat two meals a day. I chose to eat in response to hunger rather than out of habit (so I don't eat at fixed times nor do the 'three square meals' thing). I eat until my appetite is satiated. I never avoid fat and try to avoid all refined carbohydrate.

Sometimes I will only have an evening meal - meaning I will have fasted 24 hours - but I let my appetite dictate this. If I am doing more exercise I am inclined to eat more having worked up an appetite. I rarely feel the need to snack but if I do then it is on nuts and a bit of fruit.

I am able to exercise fasted and don't feel I need to eat in 'windows' before or after exercise.

It takes time to stop eating out of habit and routine. I am at a stage now where I implicitly trust my hunger to dictate when and how much I eat. I say I don't 'do' hunger - by which I mean that I will not persist in a chronic state of hunger. If I am 'hungry-hungry', I eat.

Hope this helps,
Shani.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Ah yes - the old "common sense" tells us that exercise makes us thinner! It is far from conclusive that exercise will make you thin. There are people at a gym near me who have been dieting and spinning at least three times a week for 5 years and they are still fat. How do you think you work up an appetite?

This article makes an interesting read (http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/index1.html"

"Steve Blair, for instance, a University of South Carolina exercise scientist and a co-author of the AHA-ACSM guidelines, says he was “short, fat, and bald” when he started running in his thirties and he is short, fatter, and balder now, at age 68. In the intervening years, he estimates, he has run close to 80,000 miles and gained about 30 pounds.

When I asked Blair whether he thought he might be leaner had he run even more, he had to think about it. “I don’t see how I could have been more active,” he said. “Thirty years ago, I was running 50 miles a week. I had no time to do more. But if I could have gone out over the last couple of decades for two to three hours a day, maybe I would not have gained this weight.”"


I do about 5 hours exercise a week - and two of those hours are a climbing session in which most of the time I am chatting rather than climbing - but I remain lean. I am sure I do no where near the physical exertion levels of the guy quoted above. By the way, here is another interesting article by Gary Taubes:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E2D61F3EF934A35754C0A964...

Cheers,
Shani.

In reply to Anonymous:

Thanks for taking the time to post all of that - very interesting!

In reply to Anonymous: Sounds more like Atkins than Paleo to me. I've read Cordain's book, and myself follow a lower-carb diet (i.e. refined food stuff in general), but if I remember well, he advocates eating plenty of lean meats, as well as fish and seeds/nuts that are rich in essential fatty acids, rather than saturated fats.

In reply to Anonymous:

Stow said: You should try to consume about 500 to 750 calories per day less than you burn. This should result in losing 1 – 1½ pounds per week.

You said: You couldnt stick to it for 14 months

I said: You would have to be 60-90lbs overweight if you did


As they say do the Math(s).

In reply to TimS:

No problem. If you give it a go then please post up the results! I am sure most of us on this thread would be keen to see wider experiences. If you want any further info then give me a shout!

Just one final thought:

Stow advises that to lose fat you should "consume fewer calories in your diet or increase the amount of exercise you do" - ie eat less and do more.

Now let me ask you a question, if you were invited round to my house to eat a sunday roast with all the trimmings and I requested you 'bring your appetite', what would you do? Well, you'd probably have a small breakfast or even skip it (eating less), or you might work up an appetite by going for a big walk (doing more).

So Stow's advice to lose weight (eat less, do more), is EXACTLY the same as that which you would do to compel you to eat more!

And people wonder why claorie restricted diets don't work! Paleo diets work at a hormonal level - and have a greater satiating quality. So stow is right to observe that we must create a deficit but his way of doing this is based on hunger. IIRC one of the four horsemen of the aplocalypse is hunger - that should tell you all you need to know about Stow's (ahem) definitive advice!

Shani.

In reply to Simon Lee:

You simply looking at numbers rather than what causes hunger and our response to it.

Do the reading.

In reply to Anonymous:


Choose foods that have lower calories and higher bulk to fill you up like veg, muesli if hunger is the issue.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Are you implying here to avoid fat?

In reply to Anonymous:

Certainly reduce it ie low fat, not no fat. Thats why I tend to avoid dairy products if I want to lose weight. I appreciate there is fat in nuts if that is what you are getting at.

In reply to Anonymous:


Thanks - not really an option for me as I'm vegan, don't think the diet would work out without all that fish and meat!

In reply to Simon Lee:

So you are saying that you can choose bulky foodstuffs with few calories and put yourself in to calorific deficit - so lose weight without hunger?

Shani

In reply to Anonymous:

You can incorporate them. Come on get on with it

In reply to Simon Lee:

I have my doubts as a calorie deficit is a calorie deficit. I don't think you can fool your body that easily. You might feel full after a meal, but may well get hungry again very soon after the meal - or the next day. If it was as easy as you suggest, there would be a recommended 'model' based upon it. There isn't. People on low fat calorie restricted diets invariably fail.

This is a significant feature of paleo eating - where paleo dudes can go without eating for long periods of time without attendant hunger. Some of the beneficial changes are at a hormonal level - not so with a LFCR diet.

You might want to look for some recent research that supports (and favours) low fat calorie restricted diets.

Here is something else to read in the meantime:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/121376683/abstract?CRETRY=1&...

In reply to Anonymous: People on low fat calorie restricted diets invariably fail.


Invariably you say? - without variance?. Granted some people fail to stick to a calorie controlled diet but that is a failing of the dieter rather than the diet.

In reply to Simon Lee:

Hmmm - blame the dieter eh?

And why do people fail on a diet - my guess would be hunger! You may suggest the dieter has failed, but I think it is natural to respond to hunger - particularly if it is acute.

If you read the link to the Israeli study above you will find their conclusion was that a NON CALORIE RESTRICTED paleo diet was at least as effective as the CALORIE RESTRICTED mediterranean diet for weight loss.

Think about the implications of that. The diet industry is built on failure. So if anyone out there has failed on a diet, may well want to try a paleo diet to lose fat and avoid the 'pain' of calorie restriction and chronic hunger.

I know which one I would rather do.

When I start to get heavier and decide to do something about it I try to:-

Avoid any mid week drinking sesssions.

Cut out the chocolate snacks.

Severely limit the amount of bread I eat.

Keep plenty of protein going in.

Then you start to get a bit lighter, climb better and then gradually forget about all the above and then you decide you've got a bit heavier and....................

In reply to Anonymous:
And why do people fail on a diet - my guess would be hunger! You may suggest the dieter has failed, but I think it is natural to respond to hunger - particularly if it is acute.

Not just hunger - sometimes habit, sometimes because food can be pleasureable to eat. People like pleasure it's rewarding therefore they eat. Jees it's not just about hunger = eating!!!

In reply to Simon Lee:

Simon, I found a paper on Cochrane (a 'gold standard' organisation in the medical world), relating to

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18646093?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSy...

...and you will also note that it has been withdrawn.

I am not sure why a paper would be withdrawn - maybe some more learned posters could advise.

One site I found linking to this paper said that "This review is withdrawn because it is very much out of date, as authors stated. None of the authors has any plans to update it."

(Low fat) food for thought methinks.

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to Anonymous:

Rubbish. 3 times a week is nothing.

Serious excercise does make a person thinner. Not 3 times week spinning and power walking or any other fad. Just good old running. Run 1 hr a day, 6 days a week and the weight will drop off and stay off if the person eats a 'normal' diet.

I'm not saying these fancy diets don't work but to rubbish excercise shouts of ignorance.

In reply to IainRUK:


I thought that. I was nudging underwieght when I was cycling to the train station every day, going to the gym 3 time a week, doing 3 or 4 hours of Karate a week and running 2-3 hours or maybe 14 hours climbing / walking at the weekends in the hills. And a high proportion of my diet was carbs. Primarily beer. Again, just an energy balance.

In reply to IainRUK:



Rubbishing exercise DOES shout of ignorance. I am not rubbishing exercise. I am pointing out that exercise is an excellent way to get fit (and should be encouraged), but not a particuarly good way to get thin - particularly for the long term.

Cheers,
Shani

In reply to aphyx:

I Haven't read through everything here but has any one Mentioned "Thermabol" to you yet?

Okay, I give up.

I did not want to spend the time writing this but it seems like the conversation about whether or not low carb / paleo is a valid science is going round in circles. It's also evident that people are not convinced by the science, however compelling it may be. I am not surprised - it's complex and I for one can only claim to partially understand it. I rely on others whose credentials I trust, to do it for me.

However, my experience, which I will briefly outline, has removed any doubt I may have had:

I am highly disciplined. In 2004, I decided I wanted to be thin so I could get a better half marathon time. Each night I weighed myself and recorded my percentage fat and overall weight. I ate practically the same food daily and ran 30 miles per week religiously. It was a very low fat diet - too low I would say - possibly as little as 15 grams per day. I reduced my calories by 350 per day (I even weighed my porridge oats, so I knew the numbers). I steadily lost weight and went from 12 stone to 11 stone 5 over the course of 3-4 months. A lot was muscle, a lot was fat.

Guess what? I was perennially hungry. Starving. All the time. All my carbs came from porridge oats, vegetables and fruit. No bread, no pasta, no potatoes. All fibrous, so-called filling carbs. The only reason I stuck with it was that I was determined to get thinner. My girlfriend said I look too skinny.

Ironically, my running time did not improve. My suspicion is that I was overtraining and/or my diet was too low in fat.

Anyway, a year ago someone told me the conventional thinking on diet was wrong. Low fat, high carb was not the way forward. She gave me the Palaeolithic rationale. It made sense. The medical/health establishment, I noted, disagreed. But hey, these were the same people told me there would be a CHD epidemic in the 90s.

So I tried it. For one reason or another, my starting point was roughly the same as before the 'get thin' initiative a couple of years before - same body composition, I mean.

I gave up my 30 miles per week and instead did 90 minutes of weights and interval training per week. Previously I was doing 6 hours per week of running and some weights. I stopped eating oats and muesli and went from 6 pieces of fruit per day to one. Now it was all about nuts, veg, meat, fish, seeds, coconut, salad, and a little fruit. And yes, I was now eating loads of fat - both saturated from the meat and unsaturated from the fish, nuts, avocado, coconut etc.

I continued to weigh myself religiously. The result, one year later? I am the same percentage body fat but much more muscular. But here's the clincher - I am only hungry when I am hungry, if you see what I mean. When I am hungry I eat until satisfied. Plus, each week I have 4.5 hours more than I did before.

So - I slashed the amount of cardio I do and I quadrupled the fat in my diet. Yet I ended up lean and mean. Go figure.

Oh - one more thing: I am fitter than ever, thanks to the brief but intense interval sessions I do with either weights or sprinting.

In reply to campag:

No, what is it?

In reply to Wibble Wibble:

It a crazy natural drug that you can buy form most good herbalists. It mainly consists of green tea and caffeine. But depending on how keen you really are to loose those extra ponds it is a way. This is not a recommendation you use it, although I have, and It does work if supplemented with a healthy sensibly diet. Boxers and climbers have been known to use it to shed those crucial ponds.

In reply to Methuselah/Shani:


Can you post a succinct abbreviation of the paleo diet equivalent to the post I copied by Stow for a conventional diet.

Readers looking for a suitable diet for athelets can then easily compare and contrast the two.

In reply to Simon Lee:

I have posted above what I typically eat. onlytovey and Methuselah have done the same. There are also other threads detailing this (you showed eagerness earlier to link to my previous posts). The article featuring Nasim Taleb above also gives some idea.

Basically fill half your plate with animal protein and half with grilled/steamed/roasted veg or salad. Supplement with lots of nuts and some fruit (but go steady with bananas). Eat until full.

Like any dietary change there will be habits to break but once you get in to the swing of it, it is easy.

I notice that each of us paleo-eaters have discussed hunger and specifically how it eases with a move to paleo eating and our newfound 'comfort' with it. This is a real strength of this approach to nutrition.

In reply to Shani:

Matt Pigden (another UKC 'paleo-eater') also offers advice in this thread:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=314022&v=1#x4648156

In reply to Simon Lee:


Looks like I was right, can I claim my £5 now?