I’ve taken a lot of “guff” over the last year or so for switching to what most people refer to as a low-carb diet. I say “most people” because I’ve never called it that; I call it a “smart carb” diet.
What’s the difference?
Low carb implies you’re getting less than you need.
Truth is, I cut out pasta and bread (and other simple sugars and flours) from my diet, lost a considerable amount of body fat, and have never felt better.
Why is this?
A couple reasons.
1) Now that I’m a coach and not a player, I don’t need as much energy as I used to. This means I don’t use (and therefore need to replenish) as many carbohydrates as I did while playing hockey.
2) If I do eat any bread, pasta, simple sugars, etc., it is always immediately after an intense training session. At that time, the carbs are used to expedite recovery and replenish energy stores, instead of making you feel tired and fat like these foods tend to do during other time periods.
3) I ate around 15 servings of fruits and vegetables a day. This is the primary reason I refer to it as a “smart carb” diet instead of a “low carb” diet. I’m still taking in a lot of carbohydrates, but fruits and vegetables give you more “bang for your buck” because of all the additional vitamins (and fiber depending on what time of grain products you eat).
I tend to think that the criticism doesn’t really come because someone disagrees with what I’m doing. I think it’s more a “I could never give that up so there must be something wrong with it” mentality. I look at it like this-If it makes me feel better, makes me perform better, and makes me look better, why WOULDNT I do it?
Health reasons?
Glad you asked. I recently had blood work done. Here are the results:
I’m happy to say that, according to my blood work, it looks as if I’ll live another day. Maybe cutting out some carbs and adding in some high quality protein and fats isn’t such a bad idea afterall?