why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
I did a high fat low carb diet for 6 months 2 years ago and lost 70 lbs. I also restricted calories, however. I enjoyed it, for the most part, as I completely lost my appetite and once I fully acclimated, I felt amazing.
I think most people in the community (reddit.com/r/keto mostly) I encountered fully believed in the CICO as well as low carb high fat, but it was less important than macros.
The only reason I am not doing it now is due to a recent gallbladdar removal (unrelated to keto diet) that make that kind of diet uncomfortable to my system, though I may pick it up again at some point once I've acclimated more.0 -
In the past, I did Atkins - I didn't do it the recommended way, I just cut carbs. I didn't watch fat intake or anything else and I lost more than 40 lbs. I gained it back once I started eating carbs again. I then did South Beach two or three times. I liked South Beach better because I could have beans as a complex-carb and that made a difference in my overall enjoyment of what I was eating. Again, I didn't watch calories or fat intake and I didn't typically stick to low fat the way South Beach recommends. Again, I lost 35 or so pounds each time, then life got crazy and I went back to bad habits and gained it back. Right now, I am doing Medi-weight - which is low carb, low calorie, and low fat. I log everything and average about 25 carbs a day and about 38 grams of fat a day. I take lots of good vitamins to supplement and I've lost 60 lbs since October 2015 and feel great. Even on this diet though, if I get my carb content above 30 carbs a day, my weight loss tends to stall. High carbs cause insulin spikes that eventually crash and make you crave high carbs again. The premise behind low carb diets is to get your insulin leveled out so cravings stop and you don't feel that "out of control" feeling that comes from a physiological response to a sudden drop in insulin. I like Medi-weight, because it is a balanced approach of calories, fat and carbs. I feel that I'll have better success over all in keeping the weight off because I have learned to eat right vs. just removing carbs which can't last forever.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Anyone who cares about their diet is going to have a diet that looks a lot different than the SAD...you don't have to low carb. My diary is open...my nutritional profile is outstanding and a far cry from the SAD, and I don't low carb at all.
Simply having a balanced diet is going to be a far cry from the SAD. To me, the comment:And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Implies that carbs = SAD = junk. There are a whole lot of highly nutritious carbs out there that aren't "junk"...carbs go well beyond 40 ounce Big Gulps.
0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
Read the final line of the post I quoted...
"Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF."
Most seem to "think" it.
I didn't say that. I know for me, and others on LCHF, it was difficult maintaining a calorie deficit keeping carbs higher and fats lower. It just became EASIER eating LCHF compared to the standard macro ratio. I wasn't constantly thinking about when and what I could eat next.
If what you are doing works for you and you feel full, great! But that's not necessarily the case for everybody and I certainly wasn't insinuating you can't feel full if you don't eat LCHF.
0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
You don't low carb, do you? From what you said before I thought you did what I did (until recently), eat a somewhat lower percentage of carbs than the MFP default goal--for me it was about 35-40%, which was kind of low (nowhere near keto, though) when I was doing 1250, but isn't particularly low when I'm at 1800.
But also I see comments all the time from low carb people (generally not in this thread, though) that suggest or at least seem to suggest that if someone isn't doing low carb they are struggling with hunger or not satiated. That's why I keep saying that low carb is neither bad nor good inherently, but depends on the person, and that it's helpful for people who feel hungry or non satiated on a more standard macro mix, but that for many or most dieters that's not the issue. Being non-satiated (vs. sometimes wanting to eat because I like to eat or use food for comfort) has never, ever been my problem on a diet, as I know how to eat in a way that makes me satiated, and that's not low carb. In fact, I find many carbs quite satiating (like potatoes). I've definitely been in discussions on MFP where people insisted that pasta or potatoes could not be satiating, without limiting that to their own individual responses.
I do think that ON AVERAGE fat and protein is more satiating to people than refined carbs (fiber probably makes a difference) and probably even than carbs in general, but like with things like when you eat that still doesn't say anything about the results for any individual, so I say everyone should experiment for themselves.
I do suspect a lot of the arguments on this topic are just about people misreading each other, and am not saying I'm immune.0 -
kamakazeekim wrote: »I have PCOS and when I tried just CICO I continued gaining weight. Once I was put on metformin and restricted carbs I lost weight like crazy even though my calorie intake actually went up. I realize the typical person without a hormone issue going on probably wouldn't have the same issues that I did.
you are still doing CICO ..you are just using medication to regulate the out side for you ..0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Anyone who cares about their diet is going to have a diet that looks a lot different than the SAD...you don't have to low carb. My diary is open...my nutritional profile is outstanding and a far cry from the SAD, and I don't low carb at all.
Simply having a balanced diet is going to be a far cry from the SAD
That is where part of the miscommunication lies: some people attribute the SAD to a macronutrient ratio instead of food types and food quality0 -
I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Same. And... I ate at maintenance feeling "full" on low carb while I was attempting to lose. It was no more satiating that what I had been eating because my "feeling full" meter was borked.
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »Wiseandcurious wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »Heres an example. Way back when, I was a member of an egg fast-stall breaker diet page. For 1-2 weeks these people ate nothing but eggs and fat (butter, mayo, coconut oil). The rule was 1 TBS fat per egg. The general amount of eggs consumed were 10-12 per day with the added fat alongside.
The calories were huge and yet the majority lost weigh like crazy!
at 70 calories an egg that would be 840 calories for 12 eggs …so if you just 12 eggs and some fats not sure you would hit 1500 ????
But 12 TBS of fat would be at least another 1200 cal or more, if we go by that story. Personally I think people were probably skipping fats however.
12 tbs of fat a day is insane!!! If I have a 2 tbs of olive oil a day that is ALOT for me...
How would you even do that unless you were having it in shots? I love eggs but the thought of them swimming in all that oil... gag.
When you cook an egg in fat, it doesn't absorb all of it. There is a large amount left behind in the pan.
My personal take on all this is I have lost on low carb diets, I have gained on them as well. Same for calorie counting, I'm a lifetime member of WW and I can lose or gain on those kinds of diets too.
I am just now learning that what matters to my body is portion control and moving my body a bit each day. Don't have to be a runner, just move it, move it, move it and the weight comes off. Oh and by portion control, I mean lots of veggies filling the majority of the plate, some protein and a tad of fat. I had been making it so complex my whole life and finally I have learned my lesson and am within 20 lbs of my goal weight and I eat whatever I want, just in moderation. I can have chocolate, I can have wine, just not all the of that stuff within my sight range. I eat, I log, and I move my body now. Seems to be working out this time.
Interesting thread, OP.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Anyone who cares about their diet is going to have a diet that looks a lot different than the SAD...you don't have to low carb. My diary is open...my nutritional profile is outstanding and a far cry from the SAD, and I don't low carb at all.
Simply having a balanced diet is going to be a far cry from the SAD. To me, the comment:And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Implies that carbs = SAD = junk. There are a whole lot of highly nutritious carbs out there that aren't "junk"...carbs go well beyond 40 ounce Big Gulps.
I never once said junk. Never once.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
Lol! What? Who said that? No one said "we are the only ones who ever feel full", lololol.
You don't low carb, do you? From what you said before I thought you did what I did (until recently), eat a somewhat lower percentage of carbs than the MFP default goal--for me it was about 35-40%, which was kind of low (nowhere near keto, though) when I was doing 1250, but isn't particularly low when I'm at 1800.
But also I see comments all the time from low carb people (generally not in this thread, though) that suggest or at least seem to suggest that if someone isn't doing low carb they are struggling with hunger or not satiated. That's why I keep saying that low carb is neither bad nor good inherently, but depends on the person, and that it's helpful for people who feel hungry or non satiated on a more standard macro mix, but that for many or most dieters that's not the issue. Being non-satiated (vs. sometimes wanting to eat because I like to eat or use food for comfort) has never, ever been my problem on a diet, as I know how to eat in a way that makes me satiated, and that's not low carb. In fact, I find many carbs quite satiating (like potatoes). I've definitely been in discussions on MFP where people insisted that pasta or potatoes could not be satiating, without limiting that to their own individual responses.
I do think that ON AVERAGE fat and protein is more satiating to people than refined carbs (fiber probably makes a difference) and probably even than carbs in general, but like with things like when you eat that still doesn't say anything about the results for any individual, so I say everyone should experiment for themselves.
I do suspect a lot of the arguments on this topic are just about people misreading each other, and am not saying I'm immune.
I don't, currently, no, and I agree, it may not have the same satiating effect for everyone.
Just pointing out that that person was responding to an argument no one was making.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
^^^ I agree 100%0 -
Once you ditch the processed carbs, grains, sugar, alcohol and even dairy, it is really hard to even get above 80 grams of carbs a day. At that point you have eliminated the biggest sources of calories in the standard american diet. AND you are eating foods that reduce appetite - PROTEIN.
Many low carb dieters have a hard time being convinced that they are eating LESS calories, but it is automatic. I eat a Paleo diet (I personally hate that label, but there it is) and when I tracked my calories after a week, I was still calorie restricted, I just didn't feel hungry. I was actually eating almost exactly the same number of calories as before I made changes. I don't consider how I eat low-carb - it's definitely not keto.
After over a year, I now have to track macros/calories consumed or I do not see results. I lost 30 lbs. CICO and another 20 with paleo - no tracking at all. In the end you still need to restrict calories, some methods make it easier than others.
0 -
I do a low carb diet but to me it's simply a different approach to achieving CICO. /thread0
-
I know it will require people to buy the book but what got me into LCHF was "the art and science of low carbohydrate performance" buy it on a kindle for 10$. Most of the book points to the fact we can run on very little carbs and perform just as well as if we were on them. A one/two week phase is needed to get started. Think like cutting coffee out. Your body hates you but after a while it was just a habit. I look at our body's as has tanks the amount of fat and carbs we can hold. From the book, please excuse the lack of exact data, we can store up to 2000 calories of carbs. Whereas fat can be stored in the 10000s. Why not learn to use that instead? Following a keto diet allows the fat to burn and consume the energy we are carrying around our waist/hips/arms etc.0
-
Once you ditch the processed carbs, grains, sugar, alcohol and even dairy, it is really hard to even get above 80 grams of carbs a day. At that point you have eliminated the biggest sources of calories in the standard american diet. AND you are eating foods that reduce appetite - PROTEIN. Many low carb dieters have a hard time being convinced that they are eating LESS calories, but it is automatic. I eat a Paleo diet (I personally hate that label, but there it is) and when I tracked my calories after a week, I was still calorie restricted, I just didn't feel hungry. I was actually eating almost exactly the same number of calories as before I made changes. I don't consider how I eat low-carb - it's definitely not keto.
After over a year, I now have to track macros/calories consumed or I do not see results. I lost 30 lbs. CICO and another 20 with paleo - no tracking at all. In the end you still need to restrict calories, some methods make it easier than others.
Normally a low carb diet means an increase in protein0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
CICO is a one size fits all.rachylouise87 wrote: »firm believer in CICO but some people are more insulin sensitive. firm believer weight loss is not a one fits all.
big believer in the below
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/hormonal-weight-loss/
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/female-effect-hormones-determine-female-fat-patterns/
Medical conditions just skew one or the other.
CICO is one size fits all, but the macro ratios that work best for you will differ person to person. Like I said above, one thing that occasionally annoys me about some low carb people here (not the sensible ones, which are most of those in this thread) is the assertion that EVERYONE would do better on lower carbs or that everyone finds that carbs trigger their hunger in the same way, etc. But the same is, of course, true in reverse when people insist that low carb is unhealthy or can't work or would be too depressing. Depends on the person.
And this is where IIFYMM comes into play.
It holds true for keto, vegan, paleo, veg, LCHF, we all have Macros and Micros just how we fill them differs.
I always find it funny when people hate on IIFYM yet they actually follow it.
Yes, I agree with all that. I interpret IIFYM as just meaning that you watch your macros, basically. By definition low carb folks do, at least low carb folks who also try to hit a general ballpark or better for their fat percentage.
And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Anyone who cares about their diet is going to have a diet that looks a lot different than the SAD...you don't have to low carb. My diary is open...my nutritional profile is outstanding and a far cry from the SAD, and I don't low carb at all.
Simply having a balanced diet is going to be a far cry from the SAD. To me, the comment:And from my view, most low carbers focus on their macro ratios. Just their macros look a little different than the SAD.
Implies that carbs = SAD = junk. There are a whole lot of highly nutritious carbs out there that aren't "junk"...carbs go well beyond 40 ounce Big Gulps.
I never once said junk. Never once.
I didn't say that you said it...it would appear to be implied in the statement and it's an implication that is made often by low carbers...I know a few personally, and they all think carbs are satan...they all think carbs are killing people...they're nutty.
It's ok...I'll enjoy my legumes and my whole grain oats and my brown rice and my potatoes and sweet potatoes and my fruit and my copious amounts of daily vegetables and I'll be happy.0 -
I'm not going to read 11 pages of replies so I'll just say that there are probably a lot of women with PCOS who don't know they have it, and carbs are an issue. There are also people who are gluten intolerant and don't know it. Both of these are alleviated by lower carbs, or just type of carb you consume.
Whatever works for you - go for it. I personally have learned from many years of experience that I do not lose weight if my carbs are over 30% of my macros and I feel like crap in general when I eat a sandwich or a wrap so I just try not to.0 -
I would agree with others who have commented to the effect that low-carb can affect satiety and thus make it easier to stick with a calorie deficit. I've tracked my intake of various nutrients and calories on and off for years (like 30 years) for various health-related reasons only one of which is weight management...but anyway I guess the reason I state that is to indicate that I feel have a very good handle on how many calories I eat in a day, even when not tracking meticulously, as a result of all that tracking.
I have always been a low-carb scoffer, but a couple of years back something sort of clicked for me that made me realize why it works, or seems to work, better than strictly CICO. When doing a moderate exercise regime that includes weight lifting, yoga and cardio, I feel I need a certain minimum number of grams of protein to keep building muscle and feeling energetic in my workouts. If I'm not trying to lose weight, not watching caloric intake, no big deal...I just eat til I'm full and naturally choose lots of things with protein (which also often include lots of fat and carbs). In the past, when I've tried to add on calorie restriction to an exercise program, I have had more or less the same macronutrient balance, just far fewer calories. This resulted in me having a lot more trouble sticking to my calorie target and I'd eventually just drop it. So a couple of years ago I decided to give a high-protein regimen a try--the requirement was NOT that I restrict carbs per se, but rather than I aim for a particular target number of protein grams and a particular target number of net calories. The end result was that I was eating a pretty low-carb diet. MUCH easier to stick with the calorie target when I focused on keeping those protein grams at a particular level. If my calorie count goes up for the day, due to increased exercise, decreased focus on weight loss, or whatever, I tend to add back in more carbs to make up the caloric additions, and I will still lose weight at my targeted/expected rate. Keeping the protein grams at a particular minimum level at all times (which translates to what is essentially a "low carb" diet during periods of caloric restriction) seems to be the key for me to stick with a program with much less effort/willpower. I haven't ever "restricted carbs" per se, but by default I am sometimes heavily restricting carbs if I am not exercising much, trying to lose weight, and trying to maintain a certain number of grams of protein...so it seems to me that "carb restriction" is sort of approaching the problem backwards, but it does sort of get you to the same result as far as what you're eating.
Anyway, that is my longwinded opinion for what it's worth. I still don't particularly think there is anything magical about "low carb" diets--I agree that CICO is primarily what effects weightloss, but I think caloric-deficit diets can't necessarily keep that "ideal" or maintenance-level macronutrient balance without dipping too far below the required number of protein grams to sustain musclebuilding and exercise. So it's worth paying attention to how one's body reacts to shifting the macronutrient balance toward protein and away from carbs. I think the bottom line is that if you feel like you're doing something you can't sustain indefinitely, nutrition wise, you're probably doing something that's not too healthy.0 -
I know it will require people to buy the book but what got me into LCHF was "the art and science of low carbohydrate performance" buy it on a kindle for 10$. Most of the book points to the fact we can run on very little carbs and perform just as well as if we were on them. A one/two week phase is needed to get started. Think like cutting coffee out. Your body hates you but after a while it was just a habit. I look at our body's as has tanks the amount of fat and carbs we can hold. From the book, please excuse the lack of exact data, we can store up to 2000 calories of carbs. Whereas fat can be stored in the 10000s. Why not learn to use that instead? Following a keto diet allows the fat to burn and consume the energy we are carrying around our waist/hips/arms etc.
You can still live a balanced life if you have carbs in your diet. My opinion is with a balanced macro ratio that does not exceed your CICO requirments you can go either way.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions