What LCHF is NOT!

deansdad101

Been thinking a lot about the impending changes and additions to the Group "Announcements" and/or FAQ's/Mission Statement and Frob's statement in his first draft where he said;
" I am hesitant to set any firm line on what is low-carb and what is not."

It's a comment I completely agree with since I too believe it's neither our place, NOR is it even possible, to "set a firm line" or even define exactly, what "LCHF" is.

I began by approaching it from the perspective of listing a bunch of "generally accepted" concepts and guideline "recommendations" but continuously ran up against the roadblock of the wide diversity of those considering the LCHF lifestyle
Not just from a medical but also ethical or any number of other personal choice, considerations.

As a Group, we must take all of those into account and encourage (and assist) all members in finding the "right mix" of the various alternatives of LCHF for EACH of them.

That we can do that is, IMO, perhaps the greatest benefit of LCHF. Yes, I do believe that there are certain "lines" that should not be crossed, and I'm not a big fan of "one from column A and one from B" but that doesn't mean that someone can't be successful either including dairy or not, e.g. There will never be total agreement on those types of things, nor should there be.

Unlike other approaches that insist that there is one "right" way to do it and if you are not meeting with success it MUST BE because you are either not doing it the way "we told you", you are "obviously lying about your cal intake or overstating your exercise cals out", or the famous "or else you are just a glutton or a sloth" - LCHF says "you just need a couple "tweaks" to adjust the program to fit YOUR specific needs", and someone here will be able to help you pin down the needed "tweaks".

We say, unlike those so locked in their dogma, that LCHF (in any one particular form) might NOT be right for YOU and ANY one particular program is definitely NOT "right" for everybody.

So my list of "generally accepted concepts and guidelines" just never really got anywhere.

It finally occurred to me that perhaps a list of what LCHF is NOT might be more productive.

I do believe though that a few "consensus" definitions of terms would be helpful - not so much because it actually "matters" if the upper limit of LC is 150 or 119 (it doesn't) but only so that we can all be "on the same page" when discussing things that are very open to individual interpretation, so let's start with those (and of course any of these can be "adjusted" as the group sees fit since it's all relative anyway).

On Carb Levels, can we agree on the following terms:

1. "Carbs" means TOTAL carbs. Although it's totally acceptable for one to track/count and compute "NET" carbs if that is their wont (and belief) "x" Total Carbs will almost always be a number lower than "x" Net Carbs and when discussing any individual situation it really does matter when someone reports "I've been under 20 carbs/day...." whether those are Total 20 or Net 20 (which might be 60 Total), so we're not arguing the case of which is "right" but rather which it IS.
2. 100-150/day we'll call LOWER Carb - a significant reduction from the SAD "HIGH Carb" levels but above the LOW Carb numbers generally considered to be the threshold for LCHF.
3. 50-100/day the upper range of LCHF where "most" will either begin to experience some (if not all) of the benefits of LCHF, OR where those who have successfully navigated the waters of a Very Low Carb/Hight Fat (VLCHF) and become Fat Adapted (FA) "may" be able to maintain both target weight and an FA state.
4. 20-50/day the range in which "most" will likely produce a measurable level of ketone bodies high enough to either induce the "switch" to fat burning or to be able to maintain a FA state (after it has been established). It might also be the range in which, if maintained for a long enough period of time, "some" ("many"?) will, in fact become FA.
5. 20/day or fewer, the range which "most" will require for a period of time ranging from, at least, 3-6 weeks (typically), to enter Nutritional Ketosis (NK) or become Fat Adapted (FA).
6. NK or FA is defined as a "measured" blood B-OHB level of 0.5-3.0mmols and cannot be accurately defined by urine or breath testing (at least at the current state of technology) methods. While it is entirely possible for a person to actually BE FA or in NK without measuring B-OHB levels, it simply is not possible for them to know "for sure" that they are or are not using any of the various "subjective" indicators and as such effectively evaluate if changes to current macro ratios or levels might be indicated.

Certainly ANY ONE individual can argue that these particular numbers don't apply to their particular circumstance, just as it would be possible to argue the same with ANY specific numbers.
But it's not the specific numbers that matter, it's only that we are discussing things from the same (ANY "same"), frame of reference.

On to what LCHF is NOT:

1. LCHF is NOT - Atkins, Paleo, South Beach, Primal, or any of a 100 other "specific" diets - BUT, ANY of those CAN BE LCHF. Point being, there is NO ONE "right" way to do LCHF except the one "right" for YOU. It "might" be any of those, or something in between - it just "depends" (on what is "right" for YOU)
2. LCHF is NOT -low carb + high protein. There are well documented metabolic and physiological reasons why higher protein levels in combination with reduced dietary fat levels are not just counter productive but can be medically dangerous and it would be irresponsible for us, as a group to suggest otherwise. Low Carb + High Fat + MODERATE Protein is the proper balance.
3. LCHF is NOT likely to be successful WITHOUT simultaneous (and significant) reductions in sugar (in all its forms), grains, starches, and refined/processed foodstuffs, both because it's not possible to reduce total carbs sufficiently while continuing to consume them and because they are the major contributors to insulin level "spikes" which trigger the metabolic chain effects.
4. LCHF is NOT a "lose weight QUICK" diet plan. A properly designed and complied with LCHF diet WILL produce weight loss results, in addition to the many other positive benefits but weight loss is a secondary (although important) consideration, a "side benefit", NOT the be all and end all (for "most").
5. LCHF is NOT (necessarily) "ketosis" - although it "might" lead one to a level of ketosis wherein one achieves and maintains ketone bodies in the blood sufficient to achieve FA/NK. It is, however, entirely possible to achieve many of the benefits of LCHF at carb intake levels above those required for FA/NK but that is still MUCH BETTER (for overall health and wellness) than those levels mandated by the SAD diet.
6. LCHF is NOT a "miracle cure" for obesity, insulin resistance, T2(or1)DM, heart or CA disease, epilepsy, cancer, alzheimers, ADHD, or any of a number of other maladies frequently mentioned - but it HAS been clinically demonstrated that it CAN have very positive effects on MANY of them in numerous observational and clinical studies and individual instances.
7. LCHF is NOT "appropriate", "right", or even advisable for EVERYONE. A significant (but continuously decreasing) portion of the population has absolutely no problem dealing with levels of daily carb intake that could quite literally kill those with elevated levels of insulin resistance (many of the seriously underweight, e.g.). Their numbers, as a percentage of the population are, however, declining and we simply do not know how lifelong levels of excessive carb intake "might" affect even those not currently at or near the onset of IR.
8. LCHF is NOT primarily dependent on CICO or "net" calories and does not consider that "a calorie is a calorie" or that exercise, per se, is either a "requirement for weight loss" or an excuse to "eat back" exercise cals. This is NOT to say that total cal intake doesn't matter, or that exercise isn't beneficial for other health and wellness reasons - just that it is not a "required" component of LCHF.

These are, of course, simply my opinions, suggestions, include my own biases and subject to any modification, alteration, or flat out rejection by any and all as to whether or not they should be incorporated, or referenced in the aforementioned "announcements/faqs" discussion.

Agree or disagree, comment or dismiss, allow to influence your own thinking and opinion - or not.

It is my belief that having that discussion (including ALL points of view) here, in a thread that could be made available to those "checking us out" to see if this is a place that might "fit" for them - would be extremely helpful and beneficial for them.

Rather than a list of what "you must do if you want to play in our sandbox", links to threads like this (with input representing various points of view) would expose them not only to alternative points of view but provide them insight as to how they might wish to proceed or at least with specific questions they would want answered to help them make those decisions.

Frob's off to a great start with what is now posted as the singular "Announcement".
A little further refinement of the current verbiage, followed by a list of "links" to specific threads on topics of relevance would, IMO, be the "perfect" solution.

ONE "announcement" with a continuously growing (and changing) list of links.

For all of the ideas for specific "FAQ's" suggested to date one need only create a post thread with the intent of having it included on the Announcement list.

So, for example, a list of books or videos (or any of the other suggested ideas);
Begin a new thread (which remains "open" and active) with an appropriate and relevant title, like "Video Recommendations FAQ" and indicate in the initial post that it is intended to be included as a FAQ "referenced" thread.

Encourage posters to contribute their favorites, with a link and perhaps a short "review" but stick to the topic and not wander off topic (me/pot/kettle <g>).

Since the thread itself remains active and alive it's available for anyone to add their suggestions to as they come on them and the info is constantly updated and it's a "living document".

If need be the mods could "trim" any superfluous OT ramblings (I think?), or transfer just the video links to a new (closed) thread and then link to that.

Thoughts?

Dragonwolf

Having a "LCHF is NOT" list strikes me as doing exactly what you said you didn't want to do. After all, a lot of people who do LCHF do it solely as a means to reduce calories.

That said, I'm of the opinion that trying to define goals or whatever of a collective while trying to include every last individual person is an exercise in masochism, futility, and madness. There are simply way too many variables and individual interpretations and executions for such an endeavor to produce meaningful results (I see it happen in the Paleo circles, too -- so many critics take any flexibility mentioned to the absurd extreme and illustrate that such things make it meaningless; they do it to absurdity to berate it, but their point is valid here - if we dilute it too much, we lose its meaning entirely).

I like your "LCHF is NOT" list, but I think we could do a sort of "definitions"/glossary/"LCHF IS" type thing, too, with a proper introduction.

Perhaps something like:

LCHF is a loose umbrella term for a diverse set of ways of eating. As such, everyone's implementation details will be slightly different, but here are the generally-accepted definitions for various terms used in this group, and the guidelines we generally agree are a good place to start. These guidelines are by no means set in stone laws, and we encourage you to tweak your own diet so that it works best for you.

[Insert various definitions and generally accepted limits, recommendations, and whatnot here. If you want, I can dig up my general starting recommendations, which equates to something like:]

Carbs -- set your carbs to a realistic goal for you. I generally recommend a 100g ceiling for beginners. Set your sugar to 30-40g. Try not to exceed either of them. This level generally provides enough challenge for beginners coming off SAD, but is still easily attainable once you learn to center your meals around something that isn't pasta or bread.

Protein -- set your protein to .5-1g per pound of lean body weight, or about 100g, and try to get around it (it's okay if you're a little over or a little under). This is generally a good starting point for most people, as you can get pretty close with 3-4oz of a protein source per meal, which is reasonable for most people without trying to artificially inflate or deflate the amount.

Fat -- fill the rest in with fat. [Insert stuff about how it looks like a scary number at first, but fats really are your friend, here.]

[Insert types of food recommendations here. Talk about getting the bulk of your carbs from non-starchy vegetables and learning to base meals around proteins and vegetables instead of starches and carbs, and for cooking everything in a fat.]

This type of guideline provides (in my opinion) enough flexibility to cover most executions of LCHF, while still providing clear definitions and guidelines.