"Good Calories, Bad Calories" and other diet/fitness books (long)

[UnstrungHarp]

I think I may have read too much diet and fitness related material lately, if such a thing is possible! It all started with hearing about the ME (Metabolic Effect) Diet and Workout website, buying the book and reading their blog. Everything they said made so much sense and seemed reasonable when it comes to eating and exercising for fat loss (not weight loss) and overall health.

So, I immediately started modifying my diet and exercise to some degree to line up with their principles, which didn't require a lot of change (since I already ate "clean" most of the time and already exercised 6 days a week). Essentially I just paid less attention to calories and started watching the carbs, while still eating some "starch bites" according to my metabolic type (mixed burner, only a couple points away from muscle burner). That will make more sense if you have read the book or their blog...I can explain in more detail if anyone is interested.

I also stopped doing any steady state cardio and made sure every workout packed as much punch as possible into no more than 40 minutes or so. If a workout didn't follow the four guidelines (breathless, burning, heavy and hot), I didn't do it anymore, with the exception of HIIT and Insanity which don't incorporate any heavy weights. Those go in my rotation in between ME or Tabata style days so I'm still getting workouts 6 days a week. And if I am using a Cathe DVD for a workout, I try to make sure it also follows the guidelines, which often requires using premixes and modifications, like turning everything into a compound exercise (if it's a leg press on a high step, do overhead tricep extensions too, instead of just holding the weight).

I was very happy with all this until I ran across the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" by Gary Taubes. I think I was googling something diet related and found a review of the book. I downloaded it to my iPad (love instant gratification) and read it over the course of the next couple of weeks. It's definitely not a quick and easy read, like the ME Diet, but I quickly became obsessed - shocked at the information it contained. I can't go into everything here, but if you believe what he is saying (and according to the footnotes and extensive bibliography, you can check him out!), you will be scared to death of even thinking about carbs. I'm sure the book is designed to be extreme, because according to the author, everything we've been told for so long is extremely wrong about weight loss/obesity, heart disease, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, diabetes, cancer and even Alzheimer's. So, I immediately started questioning having ANY starch bites at ANY meal, and certainly the idea of having a reward meal every week. Obviously, not having any of the health problems listed above, I apparently don't have insulin resistance or hyperinsulinemia, but I'm only turning 30 this year so who knows what lies ahead. (and don't get me started about the exercise section...I simply must assume he was talking about ineffective, low intensity, steady state cardio that lasts forever, not HIIT or resistance training!!)

And finally, I am now reading Protein Power by the Eades husband and wife doctor team. It's like a milder, less technical version of Taubes' book but still not as lenient with carbs as the ME system. It is implying that the severe carb restriction is just temporary, and once you've retrained your metabolism by becoming more insulin sensitive again, you can reintroduce carbs into your diet gradually until you reach your personal limit at which you stop losing fat or start gaining again.

Whew...so I'm just trying to put all this together into a manageable diet and exercise plan that's going to work for me, for life...I don't have much weight to lose but I would love to shed about 10 lbs of fat and gain lean muscle mass. I also want to avoid all the "diseases of civilization," especially Alzheimer's which runs in my family. The take home points for me have been: don't count calories because our cellular machinery is much more complicated than simple calories in-calories out (each meal provides information for your hormones on what to do with the energy, not just a number of calories); people can be perfectly healthy eating a diet heavy on meat and light on veggies (not that veggies are bad); exercise must focus mostly on resistance training to do any good; insulin, growth hormone, glucagon, etc. play a vital role in overall health...okay I'll stop there.

I'd love to hear what you all have to say about any/all of the above, if you've made it this far (ha ha). Thanks!!

 

[Audryb]

I have read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and I agree with probably the first 85-90% of the book... all the really well researched and documented parts. I think he goes a bit overboard in recommending a diet 100% devoid of carbohydrates, however I do think it's smart to avoid all refined/ processed carbs and to eat very few whole grains, and to prepare them traditionally. This mostly means soaking/ sprouting/ fermenting, to increase nutritional value and to decrease anti-nutrients found in all or almost all grains, nuts, beans, etc.

I eat an extremely healthful diet that most people would think is unhealthy... I eat lots of fish, meat (including organ meats, and dark meat chicken with skin, and if that skin is crispy and delicious-looking I eat it too) and vegetables, nuts, seeds, some fruit, very few grains. I drink whole, raw milk and eat whole milk yogurt. I use real butter, lard, coconut oil and olive oil. I do not touch any kind of seed oil, canola oil, soy/ soybean oil (or any soy for that matter) or artificial sweeteners, and I eat almost nothing that comes prepared or packaged. I have no problems whatever controlling my weight, and I'm about the healthiest person I know. I never get sick. I can't remember the last time I went to a doctor.

There is a TON of research out there if you're willing to look for it - more and more people, from regular folks who realize the wool's been pulled over their eyes, to doctors who realize that the summaries of journal articles they read often don't reflect the actual data in the articles, are looking into the raw data in all the studies about disease, diet, obesity, etc. and realizing that what's been presented to the public for the past 50 years is just by and large not true. A low-fat diet is unhealthy, as is a diet high in processed oils and refined carbohydrates.

Conventional wisdom is sloooooowly getting on board with some of this - nowadays it's all about the fiber, for example, rather than white flour. And these days everyone knows how important omega-3 fatty acids are (well, the reason the typical modern diet is so lacking in omega-3's is because omega-3 and omega-6 need to be balanced, and the vegetable and canola oil that are so omnipresent in the western diet are chock full of omega-6's!)

Anyway, if you're now reading Mike and Mary Dan Eades's book, you're on the right track. Have you seen the movie "Fat Head"? I can give you some more resources to check out if you're interested.

 

[boilerchick]

Okay, I'll give you my thoughts, although don't take them too seriously as I haven't actually been successful yet a permanent weight loss.

First of all, although I haven't read those specific books, I definitely know what you mean about getting confused with all the conflicting "research" and advice by "experts" to the point that you're not sure what to believe! I've felt this way at times just reading a lot of different personal weight loss blogs. Those people don't claim to be experts and don't usually have research (beyond their own results) to back themselves up. They just share their story, and there seems to be so many different approaches. My personal go-to approach for weight loss that has been the most successful for me is fairly strict calorie counting by logging every single bite that goes in my mouth and measuring. This, of course, gets tedious. Then I read a blog about someone using an intuitive eating approach and how they've lost a lot of weight and kept it off and how much they love this approach. So I think, "I must be doing it wrong. I'll try this." Then I do and it doesn't work for me because I "intuitively" think that I "need" chocolate. I don't think it's that the method doesn't work at all, just that I have a lot of trouble trying to apply the method. Then I read another story about someone who has lot a ton of weight doing something low carb, and you can guess what happens. On goes the story.

So, this is my conclusion: there are tons of different approaches to weight loss out there. A vast majority will work and have worked for some people. And a vast majority would work for me if I were able to apply them perfectly. If I look hard enough, I can probably find an expert who will say just about anything. The most important thing is that I find an approach to eating/working out that I can live with and that works for me. Also, the people writing those books are trying to make money - they want you to think that their stuff is radical and different. However, pretty much any solid research and any expert advocating just about anything weight loss will not argue that you will lose weight if you eat fewer calories than you consume by eating fewer calories and burning more calories through intentional or unintentional exercise. I personally believe that some things (like low carb where you supposedly burn more fat or glycemic index) may have some small impact in how quickly you will lose weight, but not enough to worry about. Even on a low carb diet, you are losing weight primarily because you are eating fewer calories. So for me, I go with what works for me, and that's calorie counting. However, if I found another approach that was easier for me, I'd go with that.

One more thing, I personally can't imagine that doing less cardio would actually help anyone lose more weight. That would certainly make me leery of that program or author. I do think that adding muscle could help someone lose more weight, though. That does sound reasonable.

 

[pinkquinn]

I am a super low carber. I have been for years. I have also done long stretches with zero carbs.
Gwen Stefani is a low carber that does no cardio and she looks great!

 

[UnstrungHarp]

I have read "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and I agree with probably the first 85-90% of the book... all the really well researched and documented parts. I think he goes a bit overboard in recommending a diet 100% devoid of carbohydrates, however I do think it's smart to avoid all refined/ processed carbs and to eat very few whole grains, and to prepare them traditionally. This mostly means soaking/ sprouting/ fermenting, to increase nutritional value and to decrease anti-nutrients found in all or almost all grains, nuts, beans, etc.

Yeah! I mean, I love meat but certainly don't think I should skimp on the veggies, which do have some carbs. My biggest problem is the idea that eating fruit is bad...I understand that sugar is sugar, but I have a hard time believing that my beloved daily medium size green apple could be bad for me.

I have no problems whatever controlling my weight, and I'm about the healthiest person I know. I never get sick. I can't remember the last time I went to a doctor.

That is very inspiring - I hope I can say the same for myself after a few months!

Anyway, if you're now reading Mike and Mary Dan Eades's book, you're on the right track. Have you seen the movie "Fat Head"? I can give you some more resources to check out if you're interested.

No, I've not heard of that movie. Is it a documentary? I will look for it on netflix. Any other resources would be greatly appreciated! I'll be finishing Protein Power soon.

 

[Audryb]

boilerchick, I agree with you about anecdotal evidence, and anything I say about myself and my diet/ results should be treated as such... it works for me, but that's all I can say.

I did however answer the original post with overall long term health in mind more than weight loss, and there is tons of well documented scientific/ medical research out there supporting the idea that many of the FDA's diet guidelines are completely opposite of what they should be. Also, for anyone who hasn't read it, Gary Taubes' book is really not a diet book even though the title makes it sound like one. It's an in-depth review of the history of medical research into all kinds of modern diseases since the early 1900's, in an attempt to discover why chronic "diseases of civilization" (heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, etc.) have become more and more widespread as more and more people follow the dietary advice that's supposed to prevent them. The diet advice is kind of tacked on the end almost as an afterthought.

As far as eating fruit being bad, the real problem with fruit is with over-consuming it. If you eat an apple, yes, you're getting some sugar, but you're also getting vitamins, minerals, enzymes, fiber etc. If you drink a glass of apple juice, you're getting the sugar of several apples, plus, unless you made the juice yourself, the majority of the nutrients in that juice have been destroyed by pasteurization. If you eat dried fruit, you can eat several times the amount you would eat if the fruit were fresh and therefore seriously overload with sugar without realizing it. Even that is probably more of a long-term danger, as most of the sugar in fruit is metabolized by the liver rather than being immediately absorbed into the blood.

Also as far as being afraid to eat ANY starches now... keep in mind that everyone's body is different. One person can eat 5 bites of potato and have their blood sugar spike to 200; someone else can metabolize starches and grains much more easily. The person whose blood sugar goes on a roller-coaster ride with starches is going to gain more weight on a high-carb diet because insulin production stimulates fat storage. Everyone will have different results. You need to find a balance that doesn't leave you feeling deprived. However, if you're craving things that you know aren't good for you in large amounts, you may be lacking in another area.

I'm at work so I'll have to post the websites I'm thinking of later.

 

[UnstrungHarp]

My personal go-to approach for weight loss that has been the most successful for me is fairly strict calorie counting by logging every single bite that goes in my mouth and measuring. This, of course, gets tedious.

I totally understand! I went through a phase (well, several phases) of obsessively counting calories which inevitably led to slacking off due to my overconfidence in my ability to estimate.

However, pretty much any solid research and any expert advocating just about anything weight loss will not argue that you will lose weight if you eat fewer calories than you consume by eating fewer calories and burning more calories through intentional or unintentional exercise. I personally believe that some things (like low carb where you supposedly burn more fat or glycemic index) may have some small impact in how quickly you will lose weight, but not enough to worry about. Even on a low carb diet, you are losing weight primarily because you are eating fewer calories.

I've seen this addressed in some, if not all, the books/websites I've been reading, and the rationale goes like this (somebody correct me if I'm wrong): at the cellular level, the calories in/out "theory"(?) holds true. But, the reason this wouldn't hold true in the conventional sense is that hormones are controlling how many calories we burn through increased or decreased energy expenditure that may not necessarily be noticeable to us. So, we may have a certain base metabolism today, but say we go on a severe calorie restricted diet for a while so our bodies decide to compensate by burning a whole lot fewer calories every day. No weight loss occurs, or maybe minimal loss, then when caloric intake is increased again to an amount that can be maintained, we gain weight due to a lowered metabolism.

Conversely, say a person who has never struggled with weight decides to up their caloric intake for a while...their metabolism might speed up to compensate, preventing weight gain!

There's actually a lot more going on than just calories/metabolism though...in the presence of insulin, which is released by your pancreas to regulate your blood sugar (which goes up after a meal containing carbs), you will not burn fat. Something about insulin essentially turns fat burning off and turns fat storing on. There are about eight other hormones we have that work the opposite way, and I can't remember any of them but glucagon at the moment. Eating protein will lead to more glucagon than insulin being released in your body, which turns on the signals for burning fat instead of storing it. According to this logic, at every meal, we should try to minimize the insulin, maximize the other fat burning hormones, and eat enough calories to keep our bodies from assuming we're starving.

One more thing, I personally can't imagine that doing less cardio would actually help anyone lose more weight. That would certainly make me leery of that program or author. I do think that adding muscle could help someone lose more weight, though. That does sound reasonable.

It's not really doing less cardio, the idea is to not waste time and effort doing ineffective workouts (something like low intensity jogging for an hour or more?). The ME Workout style involves resistance training, with one compound exercise (using more than one muscle group) followed quickly by the next, pushing as hard as you can until you need to rest, then start back where you left off. The whole thing should take less than thirty minutes and could be done three times a week. They say you can do high intensity cardio intervals on the other days, again with the emphasis being on all-out effort, not a lot of time. The approach has more to do with hormones (increasing metabolism as well as insulin sensitivity) than calories burned during the workout, and of course building lean muscle mass.

I hope I didn't misrepresent anything, as I'm still researching and might not be a total convert to this way of thinking - until I see it working for me, that is!!

 

[RapidBreath]

Welcome to the Low Carb community!

Gary is right about many things and not right about everything, including exercise. He has the erroneous idea that we did not have strenuous or steady state cardio during our paleolithic past. The only thing I have to say is two issues: predators (ever try to out distance someone intent on eating you? I call that HIIT) or migration (steady state for hundreds of miles twice a year.) I have read that lower intensity exercise, like walking or hiking, does have a beneficial effect on your blood volume and joints.

I eat the amount of carbs that I need to not go into hibernation mode. I tried traditional induction a la Atkins and put on two pounds. My body temperature also tanked. For me the golden number is somewhere between 30 and 60 carbs per day depending on the amount of cardio we do. I still count calories but primarily to be sure I get enough. I don't worry about getting the higher protein a la the Eades but their books are very helpful. That said, I'm not trying to build muscle, I have more muscle than I care to and it just won't go away!

As for Alzheimers you need to look into the use of MCT oil and coconut oil used to treat Alzheimers successfully (not cure, just treat.) I'm sure that Gary referred to it as what they are calling it now, type 3 diabetes. The other thing I found terribly interesting was that there is a diet used to successfully treat children with certain kinds of seizures. Its extremely low carb, calorie restricted and the children only have to be on it for 2 years. After that they are for all intents and purposes, cured. I find that interesting and connected because in my family we get migraines which are a type of epilepsy and we also get obese and sugar problems.

You might get a lot out of Jimmy Moore's website, blog and podcast (available on iTunes and his site, free to download.) Its called Livin La Vida Low Carb.

I hope some of that was helpful.

 

[RapidBreath]

fruit

There are many fruits which are low in sugars. Squash, avocado, tomato. That said, I just watch the portions with the fruits. I find them very tasty. Maybe a bit too tasty. Some fruits produce weight gain with me and some don't and it all depends on my activity level and portion size.

Why don't you want to believe that fruit could cause harm? Keep in mind that our commercial foods have all been bred to be these super sweet versions of the original seed. What you are eating is not the fruit that originally came from nature. I'm not saying don't eat it, but don't be conned into believing that just because its a whole food that its really natural. The fruits and vegetables and grains have all been developed to be more sweet and resistant to microbes, disease, and pests. These modifications have not been without cost to the general population. Here in the US we eat soy that was modified, its not the same as what they eat in Asia. We eat corn that was created to be hyper sweet (ever try heirloom corn? it ain't candy.) We eat wheat that has been modified to the point where a portion of the population is becoming gluten intolerant because the shape of the gluten we eat now is smaller than the gluten we have eaten for thousands of years.

Not that this topic was really gluten centric. . .My point is if you want to eat a piece of fruit and count the carbs, go right ahead. If it doesn't cause a problem for you, eat it. Just don't be naive.

sorry for the ranty ranty ranty monster

 

[pinkquinn]

Rapidbreath
Sounds like u and I have done the same reading. My life changed for the better when I went locarb paleo.

 

[UnstrungHarp]

There are many fruits which are low in sugars. Squash, avocado, tomato. That said, I just watch the portions with the fruits. I find them very tasty. Maybe a bit too tasty. Some fruits produce weight gain with me and some don't and it all depends on my activity level and portion size.

Why don't you want to believe that fruit could cause harm? Keep in mind that our commercial foods have all been bred to be these super sweet versions of the original seed. What you are eating is not the fruit that originally came from nature. I'm not saying don't eat it, but don't be conned into believing that just because its a whole food that its really natural. The fruits and vegetables and grains have all been developed to be more sweet and resistant to microbes, disease, and pests. These modifications have not been without cost to the general population. Here in the US we eat soy that was modified, its not the same as what they eat in Asia. We eat corn that was created to be hyper sweet (ever try heirloom corn? it ain't candy.) We eat wheat that has been modified to the point where a portion of the population is becoming gluten intolerant because the shape of the gluten we eat now is smaller than the gluten we have eaten for thousands of years.

Not that this topic was really gluten centric. . .My point is if you want to eat a piece of fruit and count the carbs, go right ahead. If it doesn't cause a problem for you, eat it. Just don't be naive.

sorry for the ranty ranty ranty monster

You're right - I think my hesitance about thinking of fruits as bad is because they're supposed to be "natural"... I guess it's no worse than eating something processed/packaged, and hopefully it's a little better. But my practice has recently changed, after reading the books I've mentioned already, to eating a medium green apple with natural peanut butter (the kind that just says "peanuts" on the ingredient list and you must refrigerate it) maybe once every three days or so, instead of one a day with no peanut butter, plus an orange, like I used to do.

Also, I have no idea what would be the ideal number of carbs for me...I am not overweight but would love to lose some fat and improve my overall health (I have psoriasis and would like to someday get off my expensive prescription meds). I read about carb cycling on the Metabolic Effect blog, so that's pretty much what I've been doing for the past few weeks. But my cycle is much narrower than what they described, never going near the carbs permitted on either the low or high carb days. My "no carb" day probably still has 20-30 carbs from veggies and nuts, and maybe either full fat greek yogurt or the low carb yogurt from Kroger (4 grams per serving). Sometimes I'll have two no carb days in a row, and my "low carb" day is in the 60-80 gram range. My "high carb" day will consist of about 125 grams or less and will always be followed by a "no" day, and there are only two high carb days a week. No matter what day, I can't imagine ever eating more than a couple bites of pasta, pizza, bread, sugary sweets, etc. because I'd be freaking out over what my insulin is going to do.

Just got my "1001 Low Carb Recipes" in the mail from Amazon today (along with "Atkins Vita-nutrient Solution" and "The New Rules of Lifting for Women") so I can't wait to see what else I'll learn in the coming days...

 

[Audryb]

Sorry this took me so long.

Yes, Fat Head is a documentary. The guy who made it started it as a response to what he perceived as dishonesty in the making of the more well-know documentary Supersize Me, and in the process he read Good Calories, Bad Calories, met Mike Eades and Jimmy Moore, and learned about the low carb lifestyle. After finishing his fast-food experiment, he started a low carb diet and hasn’t looked back. The movie isn’t on Netflix, unfortunately (at least, it wasn’t the last time I looked) but your local library might have a copy. He also has a blog: http://www.fathead-movie.com/ that he still updates regularly and has some great info.


Dr Eades and Dr Eades also have blogs that I read:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmd_blog/

If you’re interested in a more all-natural approach to low-carb than say, the Atkins diet, you may want to look into the Paleo/ Primal movement that’s gotten pretty popular. Each one has its own book, The Paleo Diet by Loren Cordain, and The Primal Blueprint by Mark Sisson. I haven’t read either, but I do read Mark Sisson’s blog, http://www.marksdailyapple.com/ which is chock full of all kinds of interesting stuff, mostly very well documented. He’s a former competitive marathoner, but has completely changed his view of cardio as useful exercise. Reading what he has to say about exercise (which is extensive) might give you more of what you’re looking for on at least one side of that issue. His blog archives are really well organized by category.

Another book recommendation is Nutrition and Physical Regeneration, by Dr. Weston A. Price. It’s not a low-carb book, but it’s a fascinating look at traditional vs. modern foods and their associated health impact. In the 1930’s Dr. Price, a dentist, traveled the world to study something like 16 different “primitive” populations that had genetic counterparts who had adopted a “modern” diet and lifestyle. He studied their teeth and bone structure, as well as other health issues and found startling differences between those who ate traditionally prepared diets (some consisting of 90% meat) and those who ate processed foods, sweetened jams and refined flour. It’s a little difficult to read in places because of the outdated style, but definitely worth it. The entire text is available online at http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/pricetoc.html
His writings have spawned at least two foundations that are still active and their websites have lots of informative articles:
The Weston A. Price Foundation http://www.westonaprice.org/
The Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation http://www.ppnf.org/catalog/ppnf/index.htm

Nourishing Traditions is a cookbook, but it’s filled with nutritional information and information about how to traditionally prepare foods. (the introduction is 70 pages about fruits, vegetables, fats, meat, vitamins, minerals, grains, legumes, etc.) Most libraries have a copy of this as well if you don’t want to go out and spend $25 dollars on it before checking it out.

Finally, a couple more at least semi-related websites:
http://nutrition-and-physical-regeneration.com/blog/
http://thehealthyskeptic.org/
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
http://www.thincs.org/links.htm

 

[cindi1]

This is a very interesting discussion! I'm very interested but have a question...

I enjoy running - but lo-carb makes it very hard for me. I've read that it takes about 4 weeks to adjust to a lo-carb diet such that you can do endurance style workouts without feeling fatigued. Do any of you have experience with endurance types of exercise and adjusting to a lo-carb diet?

My carbs currently are in the form of fruit and whole grains 80-90% of the time...occassional sweets.

 

[UnstrungHarp]

This is a very interesting discussion! I'm very interested but have a question...

I enjoy running - but lo-carb makes it very hard for me. I've read that it takes about 4 weeks to adjust to a lo-carb diet such that you can do endurance style workouts without feeling fatigued. Do any of you have experience with endurance types of exercise and adjusting to a lo-carb diet?

My carbs currently are in the form of fruit and whole grains 80-90% of the time...occassional sweets.

I'm probably not the best person to answer, because I no longer do any endurance workouts like running. But I did notice a few days after seriously cutting back carbs, I felt some fatigue in the afternoons, seemingly unrelated to exercise (sometimes I had already completed my daily workout, sometimes I hadn't). I still occasionally feel fatigued or excessively sleepy in the afternoons... Maybe I still haven't adjusted completely yet.

 

[pinkquinn]

If u weren't in ketosis before your body can take at least 2 weeks to adjust although I have heard it can take months. I noticed the same thing when I went zero carb...although I dididnt do it long enough to really adjust. I have heard some super low carbers say that they do just fine with endurance type workouts.

 

[candy602]

Eating/fat loss confusion

For years I read every book that discussed nutrition or fat loss that I could get my hands on. I like you became very confused. All I can say is that I am no longer confused and I no longer count calories, measure food, or calculate how many calories I am burning. I simply follow the words of the books that I consider my health bibles the same books that saved my mother from stage 4 colon cancer. They are The China Study, Eat To Live, and most recently The Kind Diet. I only eat organic plants and I probably eat more carbs than all the people on this sight put together. My weight is perfect, I feel incredible at all times, and I never get sick ever.

 

[fit44]

My body loves Paleo style eating. I love carbs, but I really do have to limit the starchy ones to stay lean.

 

[RapidBreath]

This is a very interesting discussion! I'm very interested but have a question...

I enjoy running - but lo-carb makes it very hard for me. I've read that it takes about 4 weeks to adjust to a lo-carb diet such that you can do endurance style workouts without feeling fatigued. Do any of you have experience with endurance types of exercise and adjusting to a lo-carb diet?

My carbs currently are in the form of fruit and whole grains 80-90% of the time...occassional sweets.

Hi Cindi- yes I have experienced the lowered endurance. I found it was easier to slowly transition than to try to do it all at once. The trick is teaching your body to burn fats rather than the 'turbo charger' which is your carbs. I tried going cold turkey but it was too much for me. Gradually coming down on the carbs worked best also (not that I think you eat garbage) switching to all whole foods worked really well.

 

[cindi1]

Thanks Alisha (and Pinkquinn). I've got an important race coming up this weekend then I'll try the gradual approach.