Re: Revved up metabolism

[Guest guest]

-

This is good news that you are content.

However, when you write that your food had been 40/40/20, and now it is

30/40/30, without telling us whether you are talking carb/protein/fat, or

protein/fat/carb, or fat/carb/protein (etc) - it is difficult to know what

changes have been made. For me, anyway.

You are suggesting that you added more protein; does this mean that your

protein had been 20%, and you increased it to 30% or 40%? The 20 from your

first ratio is the only figure that increased.

Regardless, I'm glad you're happy!

n

At 07:10 AM 3/9/2006, you wrote:

>Hi group,

>

> I think I finally got my metabolism burning again. I was

>always freezing at work and the before mentioned problem with not

>using the little girls room like I should and I was super tired after

>the first 4-5 weeks.

>

>I tweaked my carb protein ratio a bit and wow – I am warm – sometimes

>hot, and the other issues is not an issue any more )

>

>I had been at/around 1200/1300 40/40/20 and then I bumped up the

>total food at the same ratio, nothing.

>

>Starting Monday I have been at 1300 @ 30/40/30 and it seems to be

>working for me. I am waking up early again, I'm not feeling so

>exhausted either.

>

>I was thinking maybe I just needed more protein is why this new

>combination is working for me?

>

>Whatever the reason – I'm happy and I only have just over 2.5 weeks

>left to go in this my first challenge.

>

>

>

>Thanks for reading,

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> However, when you write that your food had been 40/40/20,

> and now it is 30/40/30, without telling us whether you are

> talking carb/protein/fat, or protein/fat/carb, or

> fat/carb/protein (etc) - it is difficult to know what

> changes have been made. For me, anyway.

When you see ratios stated as such anywhere/always they are meaning

protein/carbs/fat - its like a standard way. So the OP is saying she

previously was eating the usual BFL 40/40/20 (protein/carbs/fats)

and is now eating 30/40/30 (protein/carbs/fats) or whatever. Higher

the carbs/fats and she is having more energy for working out which

some people find they need more carbs especially if they are not

getting enough 'good fats' in their diet to use (more like a split

ratio of 30/50/20) Anything under 30% fat is considered 'lowfat'

eating in dieting circles but this is supposed to signify or lower

your 'bad fat' intake to under 20% ala BFL recommendations. Most

people dont track any supplementation of 'good fats' like Barleans

Flax or UDO's combo dietary oils because the body readily uses them

for energy and other body functions (like a dry sponge!). So some

people may have to play around with the ratios a bit and or add in

some tweaks to keep themselves energized. Also when low energy is a

problem, actually looking at the quality of ones daily carbs and

fats should be suspect and require scrutinizing as to

density/processed choices - there are usually ALWAYS better choices

we could be making! :-)

joni

-------------------------------------------------

*who should be outside shoveling snow instead of typing online!*

[Guest guest]

I seem to see carbs listed first much more frequently and I list them

first myself. The Zone is always stated 40/30/30 (carbs, pro, fat) and

the standard muscle gain formula of 50/30/20 (carbs, pro, fat). And my

food pie of 50/25/25 (carbs, pro, fat). Although, now I see that EAS

has swapped them and put protein first on the website calculator.

I always ask for clarification because even if there is a standard,

most people (including myself apparently) don't have any idea what it

is. :-)

On 3/11/06, jgrrl2 <no_reply > wrote:

> When you see ratios stated as such anywhere/always they are meaning

> protein/carbs/fat - its like a standard way.

[Guest guest]

And in my case I too was meaning Carbs-30, protein-40 , fat-30

> > When you see ratios stated as such anywhere/always they are

meaning

> > protein/carbs/fat - its like a standard way.

>