why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Not the whole low carb crowd, certainly, but I do see that too, and also find it annoying.
If chips are an issue, obviously, don't keep chips at home. But are chips really an issue because carbs in general are a trigger food or because chips are?
I'm NOT saying there aren't perfectly good reasons to do low carb. I can list off many. Having trouble controlling yourself with Doritos or "junk food" doesn't seem like all that great of a one, though. It's what the law would call overly broad and not sufficiently tailored.
0 -
well I see that this thread has come full circle….nice!!!0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC? Those are also the first foods people like to brag about in those "I can have a treat whenever I want" threads. I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
They seem to be the battleground foods. I personally don't care who eats what, the question was asked if someone on keto could have B&J, and I answered with the math that explains how and why they can. People can keep arguing about chips if they want, I'm gonna kick back with my cheesecake.0 -
I eat a lot of popcorn. some nights, I will eat about 16 cups of popcorn. I buy kernels in bulk and pop it in real butter or olive oil. Because of this, I consume about 80-100 carbs, and while the macro #s are not ketogenic, I can remain in nutritional ketosis. My carb tolerance is very high, so for me it is okay. When I snack on popcorn, it is not because I am hungry, but merely because I can. If I just had dinner, and still got 1300 calories left...whats a man to do :-D?0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm losing faith in CICO....
I don't believe in it because it's wrong. Just like we turned out to be wrong about fat. Etc. Etc.
You don't identify anything supporting it being wrong, and don't even explain what you mean by "it's wrong." Are you saying calories don't matter, or simply that a variety of things affect the calories in vs. calories out equation (which everyone already agrees with)?
If calories don't matter, what does?Different types of calories have different effects, 100 calories of chips is different than 100 calories of lettuce.
There are no 100 calories of chips or 100 calories of lettuce, just calories. In addition to the energy, the foods contribute different nutrients (lettuce (as opposed to spinach or some such) doesn't actually have a lot of anything and I'm not sure how you are getting 100 calories of it, but whatever). No one claims that the nutrients are identical. Also, there are somewhat different burns related to digestion, but it's unusual to have a macro mix where that makes much of a difference (that would mean a crazy amount of protein, typically, and you need either fat or carbs for energy). Also, of course there are different effects of the macros involved--chips will provide energy, for example, since they have lots of carbs and fat. Lettuce has fiber. I will agree it would be pretty impossible to get fat eating an all lettuce diet, but that's because you wouldn't be able to eat many calories and you'd feel bad. (And of course all anything diets are silly.)I have days where I eat a boiled egg and an orange and lose nothing, and then days where I gorge myself senseless on Indian buffet food (since I'm gluten-free, it's basically meat, veggies, and fat)... and then drop 5 pounds.
You can't tell how any one day affected you. It doesn't work like that. I always gorge myself on Indian food and I eat gluten, so it ends up being one of the higher carb meals I ever eat, and yet I've gone down on the scale the day after. I fasted on Good Friday last year and ate lots on Easter and yet my weight went down more on the Monday after Easter than on Holy Saturday. Pretty sure this isn't because my Easter calories magically did not count (although maybe that's a holiday miracle). Instead, it's that the scale bounces up and down for all kinds of reasons.WHAT? That doesn't fit calories-in-calories-out.
Sure it does.'Cause of stuff like metabolisms.
People's metabolism vary. My maintenance calories if I'm sedentary suck, they are about 1550. Some 21 year old 6'3 guy could be sedentary and eat lots more without gaining. That says zero about the merits of CICO. Someone with a bum thyroid will have super low maintenance calories if not medicated often. Again, that means their CO is screwed up, not that CICO doesn't work.I don't calorie count, I don't meticulously track... I put things in when I remember to. And I'm losing weight at a rate that satisfies me... 1-2 pounds a week.
Yes, many people can lose without counting calories specifically. I've done it myself. That doesn't mean that you aren't losing because of a calorie deficit. Of course you are. You've just created it through a method other than counting, which some people prefer.basically people with glucose resistance had higher success with low-carb, and people who weren't on the track to diabetes, had more success with low-fat diets in the study.
I think this is because of compliance issues, but it also might be that carbs have more of an effect (negative) on metabolism in IR people. I know various other things, like exercise, make a difference as to how foods affect you (for example, exercise tends to make people less insulin resistant).It'd be nice if weight loss was just math. But it isn't.
It is, it's just there are lots of variables and we can't include all of them. For MOST people, we can include the important ones, though. (For those with medical conditions it is more complicated sometimes.)
excellent breakdown lemurcat….0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »nicsflyingcircus wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
Would I be able to eat a serving at night of Ben & Jerry's Half Baked ice cream?blktngldhrt wrote: »
This was my other thought. I follow the reddit/keto boards and I always read that anything under 50 g of carbs as long as it fits is fine. I mean unless it interferes with your goals. Or if you are lower in carbs. Idk this low carb stuff is giving me a headache, but I have no gastric issues right now so I shall stick with it. Ugh.blktngldhrt wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
I've also dumped cereal because the amount I need to eat for breakfast is 2.5 times the serving suggested on the box. My breakfast "diet food" is one egg, a strip of bacon, and some grilled onions.
I could care less about balanced macros. My grandparents lived past 90 at the right weight without knowing their balanced macros. But they ate good food, and had no junk in the house.
PS - I get most of my carbs from fruit and vegetables.
What are your ratios if you eat fruit then? Fruit has sugar?
The sugar I'm getting from fruit is a lot less than the sugar I was getting from cookies and ice cream.
It's entirely possible to control the amount of cookies and ice cream you eat without being LCHF. In fact, amusingly enough, the majority of calories in both are probably from fat, so HCLF people probably aren't eating lots of either.
There's a lot less sugar in potatoes or oatmeal or whole wheat pasta, to pick three major sources of carbs I've had this week, than in fruit (which I've also had, also ice cream, for full disclosure, which I easily can eat a serving of). So not really sure why you are making the discussion about "sugar."
You also didn't answer the question Mel asked.
OK. How about the calories I am getting from fruit is a lot less than the calories I used to get from cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream and other junk (which I still eat by the way, but at a reduction of about 90% from my previous levels).
I'm sure that's true, but I don't see what it has to do with the discussion or with your claim that LCHF works better than other ways to diet (lots of books on amazon, no books on HCLF, people in general just eat less on LCHF, etc.).
That's my confusion Onlythetruth. You talk about low carbs and about all these LCHF books, but you eat fruit and still eat ice cream, cake, etc. I don't really see that as LCHF...probably eating a balanced diet (the sense of what people eat). Even if you cut down, I just wonder how much you cut if you consider yourself low carb.
You can't eat fruit on low carb? There are also low carb ice cream and baked goods recipes.
too many rules...
Rules? Keep your macros at 5% net carb 20% protein and 75% fat..give or take a few percent for each (whatever works best)..drink enough fluids and keep your sodium up. Done.
How much cardio you wanna do? Anything is possible. The question is if it's worth it.
This doesn't even make sense...
Why?
Because he asked if he could have half baked ice cream..which is 32g of net carbs. In order to fit it into the keto macros he would need to have a large number of calories to work with in order to get the desired amount of ice cream and stay within the 5%. Exercise increases the number of calories one can eat..this increasing the number
of carbs.
For example, I ate 1824 calories last Thursday and my carbs were 30g net or 9%. I would have easily been able to skip the beer and jerky and have a half serving of the ice cream that day. Some people can be in ketosis at 9% carb. I, personally like 4-5% better for my blood glucose.
Because in my crazy world of just eating a well balanced and nutritious diet, I don't need to do *kitten* loads of cardio just to have a little ice cream for desert. But hey...I live in crazy land over here....
Everything you're talking about sounds like cruel and unusual punishment...I get why you do it...you have a pretty legit reason medically...I don't see how this would be appealing at all to anyone who didn't need to do it.
I have to say- I completely agree with @cwolfman13 , I do it because like you said to her- I have a legit medical reason for doing it- but can't see how it would be appealing to someone without a medical reason
It's appealing to me because I feel more satiated on the same calories doing LCHF than I did doing solely calorie counting with more "balanced" macros. Plus, I prefer salt/savory/meaty to sweet and starchy, so it works -for me-. I am not a high performance athlete, though I am making efforts on the "move more" part of the deal.
I do not preach about it, nor in fact truly discuss it much outside the keto boards because it always turns into "eat what you want and make it fit" and what people don't seem to get is that is what I am doing. I just don't happen to care to make bread/pasta/potatoes/sweets/etc... fit... right now.
*Disclaimer: I lost 80lbs straight calorie counting before switching to LCHF and another 60 since then. In both cases I am counting calories, I just feel better/fuller/happier what have you, in the second case*
Cool- thanks. I genuinely was interested and really couldn't understand why someone would do it without a medical issue- but your explanation makes sense. I think I may follow your rule about not discussing it outside the PCOS or low carber boards cause you are right.....
For what it's worth, nic's reasoning makes total sense to me and I never get why people have such trouble understanding why LCHF might appeal to someone. I cut my carbs down to about 100 (not terribly low, but I don't know what that is in net) when I was on low calories (1250), because when I prioritize food meat and cheese and savory stuff make it and most starchy and sweet stuff does not. This also means that I probably could gain weight on LCHF if I did it and didn't count calories and that I have pretty good self control with carbs, so is also why when I have more calories I end up happily eating more carbs without it screwing up my hunger or cravings or anything, maybe. But if someone says they'd rather be able to feel like they are eating whatever they want and can do that with low carb, I get it. If you made me choose between low carb and low fat I'd do low carb with no thought. I spent my childhood irritating my mother because I refused to eat sandwiches or cereal, after all. ;-) But lucky for me (since I do like potatoes and ice cream, and even some bread these days), I can do balanced macros or just play around with different ratios.
That's my point of view as well. I don't care if someone wants to eat 300g of carbs per day, or no fat, or massive amounts of protein. We all have to do what works for us, personally, within the confines of actual you know, science and stuff. Amazingly, I don't low-carb because I demonize carbs, at all.
I live in a house with a husband who packs down hundreds of grams of carbs daily and four growing children (ages 9, 11, 12 and 14) who eat what the IIFYM crowd would consider a balanced diet (good mix of carbs, fat and protein). There is full fat, full sugar ice cream in my house, pretzels, cereal, oatmeal, rice, potatoes, fruit, kraft dinner, and homemade cookies (my 14yo daughter likes to bake, and I bake too, even if I choose not to partake in the results) to go along with lean and not so lean meats, veggies, lots of eggs, full fat and 2% fat dairy (depending).
0 -
There are many examples where CICO doesn't turn up in the form "eat 500 cals/day less and lose 1 lb/week". Not specifically low carb either.
Kevin D Hall is a high priest of CICO maths but his recent poster on reducing fat vs reduces carbs appears to have a large hole in it - having taken out 800 cals of carbs from the low carb arm the subjects increased their oxidation of fat by ~400 cals from reserves with a small reduction in TDEE. Where did the other energy come from ?
If CICO is primary, why do MFP forums chastise overweight people for "eating too little" ?
My personal view is that a steady state mass and energy balance will hold true if done properly, but it's a post-hoc accounting exercise. You can't set or control a deficit, you can eat less or different food and do more or different activities and see how your body responds.
because they typically make a drastic change to eating 100% clean and viewing whole food groups as "bad' and then post a thread saying they can't eat over 1200 calories….a 250 pound male has no business eating less than 1200 calories when they could lose comfortable at say 2000 calories a day or more …..0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm losing faith in CICO....
I don't believe in it because it's wrong. Just like we turned out to be wrong about fat. Etc. Etc.
You don't identify anything supporting it being wrong, and don't even explain what you mean by "it's wrong." Are you saying calories don't matter, or simply that a variety of things affect the calories in vs. calories out equation (which everyone already agrees with)?
If calories don't matter, what does?Different types of calories have different effects, 100 calories of chips is different than 100 calories of lettuce.
There are no 100 calories of chips or 100 calories of lettuce, just calories. In addition to the energy, the foods contribute different nutrients (lettuce (as opposed to spinach or some such) doesn't actually have a lot of anything and I'm not sure how you are getting 100 calories of it, but whatever). No one claims that the nutrients are identical. Also, there are somewhat different burns related to digestion, but it's unusual to have a macro mix where that makes much of a difference (that would mean a crazy amount of protein, typically, and you need either fat or carbs for energy). Also, of course there are different effects of the macros involved--chips will provide energy, for example, since they have lots of carbs and fat. Lettuce has fiber. I will agree it would be pretty impossible to get fat eating an all lettuce diet, but that's because you wouldn't be able to eat many calories and you'd feel bad. (And of course all anything diets are silly.)I have days where I eat a boiled egg and an orange and lose nothing, and then days where I gorge myself senseless on Indian buffet food (since I'm gluten-free, it's basically meat, veggies, and fat)... and then drop 5 pounds.
You can't tell how any one day affected you. It doesn't work like that. I always gorge myself on Indian food and I eat gluten, so it ends up being one of the higher carb meals I ever eat, and yet I've gone down on the scale the day after. I fasted on Good Friday last year and ate lots on Easter and yet my weight went down more on the Monday after Easter than on Holy Saturday. Pretty sure this isn't because my Easter calories magically did not count (although maybe that's a holiday miracle). Instead, it's that the scale bounces up and down for all kinds of reasons.WHAT? That doesn't fit calories-in-calories-out.
Sure it does.'Cause of stuff like metabolisms.
People's metabolism vary. My maintenance calories if I'm sedentary suck, they are about 1550. Some 21 year old 6'3 guy could be sedentary and eat lots more without gaining. That says zero about the merits of CICO. Someone with a bum thyroid will have super low maintenance calories if not medicated often. Again, that means their CO is screwed up, not that CICO doesn't work.I don't calorie count, I don't meticulously track... I put things in when I remember to. And I'm losing weight at a rate that satisfies me... 1-2 pounds a week.
Yes, many people can lose without counting calories specifically. I've done it myself. That doesn't mean that you aren't losing because of a calorie deficit. Of course you are. You've just created it through a method other than counting, which some people prefer.basically people with glucose resistance had higher success with low-carb, and people who weren't on the track to diabetes, had more success with low-fat diets in the study.
I think this is because of compliance issues, but it also might be that carbs have more of an effect (negative) on metabolism in IR people. I know various other things, like exercise, make a difference as to how foods affect you (for example, exercise tends to make people less insulin resistant).It'd be nice if weight loss was just math. But it isn't.
It is, it's just there are lots of variables and we can't include all of them. For MOST people, we can include the important ones, though. (For those with medical conditions it is more complicated sometimes.)
excellent breakdown lemurcat….
She is a role model for the threads. Very modest, kind, and knowledgable.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC? Those are also the first foods people like to brag about in those "I can have a treat whenever I want" threads. I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
They seem to be the battleground foods. I personally don't care who eats what, the question was asked if someone on keto could have B&J, and I answered with the math that explains how and why they can. People can keep arguing about chips if they want, I'm gonna kick back with my cheesecake.
Are you going to go back and attempt to finish the too many rules conversation or are you conceding? It's your turn.
I suppose we could spend another 3 pages arguing about what the difference is between rules and simply eating within your macros. You're obviously entrenched, and I really don't care, so go ahead and proclaim a victory if it makes you feel better. I still don't see how writing the math out (the math that you are doing every day if you're meeting a calorie goal) suddenly makes it a "rule."0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »
I have my moments….0 -
On chips and potatoes (obviously these are only correlations, can't exclude other variables) - their consumption was highly correlated with weight gain in a massive prospective study (along with other things, natch). Anyway, this study makes a good case (probably the best epidemiology can do) for food quality re weight management:
*******
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/diet-lifestyle-weight-gain/
“An average adult gains about one pound per year. Because the weight gain is so gradual and occurs over many years, it has been difficult for scientists and for individuals themselves to understand the specific factors that may be responsible,” said lead author Dariush Mozaffarian, associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology at HSPH and Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), and Harvard Medical School. (Watch a video of Mozaffarian discussing the findings.)
The researchers evaluated changes in multiple specific lifestyle factors and weight gain every four years over 12 to 20 years of follow-up in three separate large cohorts, the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS II), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). The final analyses included 50,422 women in the NHS, 47,898 women in NHS II, and 22,557 men in HPFS, all of whom were free of obesity or chronic diseases at the beginning of the study. Study participants gained an average of 3.35 lb during each four-year period, which corresponded to a weight gain of 16.8 lb over the 20-year period.
When relations of lifestyle changes with weight gain were evaluated, the findings were strikingly similar in all 3 studies.
For example, the foods associated with the greatest weight gain over the 20-year study period included potato chips (for each one increased daily serving, +1.69 lb more weight gain every 4 years), other potatoes (+1.28 lb), sugar-sweetened beverages (+1.00 lb), unprocessed meats (+0.95 lb), and processed meats (+0.93 lb). Of note, several foods associated with less weight gain when their consumption was actually increased, including vegetables (+0.22 lb), whole grains (+0.37 lb), fruits (+0.49 lb), nuts (+0.57 lb) and yogurt (+0.82 lb). Evaluating all changes in diet together, participants in the lower 20% of dietary changes gained nearly 4 lbs more each 4 years than those in the top 20% —an amount equivalent to the average weight gain in the population overall.
For diet, focusing only on total calories may not be the most useful way to consume fewer calories than one expends, say the researchers. Other yardsticks, such as content of total fat, energy density, or sugars, could also be misleading. Rather, they found that eating more healthful foods and beverages—focusing on overall dietary quality—was most important.
The most useful dietary metrics for preventing long-term weight gain appeared to be:
Focus on improving carbohydrate quality by eating less liquid sugars (e.g. soda) and other sweets, as well as fewer starches (e.g. potatoes) and refined grains (e.g. white bread, white rice, breakfast cereals low in fiber, other refined carbohydrates).
Focus on eating more minimally processed foods (e.g. fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, yogurt) and fewer highly processed foods (e.g. white breads, processed meats, sugary beverages).
Such a more healthful dietary pattern could influence long-term weight gain in many ways, including, for example, through biologic effects such as changing hunger, insulin levels, or satiety, or by improving eating behaviors related to average portion sizes and patterns of foods and beverages consumed.
“These findings underscore the importance of making wise food choices in preventing weight gain and obesity,” said Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at HSPH and senior author of the paper. “The idea that there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ foods is a myth that needs to be debunked.”
The results also showed that changes in physical activity and TV-viewing influenced changes in weight. Also, those who slept 6-8 hours a night gained less weight than those who slept less than 6 or more than 8 hours.
Overall, the weight-changes associated with any one lifestyle change were fairly small. However, together they added up, especially for diet. “Small dietary and other lifestyle changes can together make a big difference – for bad or good,” said Mozaffarian. “This makes it easy to gain weight unintentionally, but also demonstrates the tremendous opportunity for prevention. A handful of the right lifestyle changes will go a long way.”0 -
I'd suggest that you go to diet doctor dot com and watch the video. The one with the evolution image. Sorry if someone mentioned this before. I am a fat guy on a over a decade of bouncing up and down. I've been both 270 and 170 since 2005 or so. I find the LCHF to be an easy permanent change in eating. I never feel hungry and I enjoy the food. My energy level is much higher and I started working out again. I'm still very new at it, but I am down about 20 pounds so far.
Each to his own and enjoy your food. It's one of the great pleasures in life!0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC?
That's not how it came up here. The poster in question said that LCHF worked better than any other diet (specifically referencing LFHC, which no one was promoting) on the basis that she can't overeat Doritos or ice cream any more. What's hilarious (among other things) about that is of course no LFHC person would eat either. The majority of calories in both are probably from fat (I'd have to check, but I'd guess that's so).
Also, it was in a discussion with me and I've never made such statements.I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
I won't do LC because it would mean I'd give up foods that I never overeat on and that I find useful, like potatoes and oatmeal. Also, sure, ice cream and pie and pizza, although I imagine I could just cheat with the last two and eat them as much as I currently do (which isn't that often).
I've said often that the reason I quit paleo wasn't because I was craving foods I couldn't eat, but because I didn't see the point of not eating certain foods that I don't care enough about to overeat but think are healthy (like beans and whole grains). It's not always about treats.
For the record, I think both low carb and paleo allow in plenty of treats for me personally to be satisfied on them. I just don't have any particular reason to prefer those ways of eating to the way I currently do. Do they work well for other people? Sure. Never ever suggested that they didn't.0 -
It's really the overall picture of food quality & amount + activity, though (re above studies)0
-
This content has been removed.
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC? Those are also the first foods people like to brag about in those "I can have a treat whenever I want" threads. I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
They seem to be the battleground foods. I personally don't care who eats what, the question was asked if someone on keto could have B&J, and I answered with the math that explains how and why they can. People can keep arguing about chips if they want, I'm gonna kick back with my cheesecake.
Are you going to go back and attempt to finish the too many rules conversation or are you conceding? It's your turn.
I suppose we could spend another 3 pages arguing about what the difference is between rules and simply eating within your macros. You're obviously entrenched, and I really don't care, so go ahead and proclaim a victory if it makes you feel better. I still don't see how writing the math out (the math that you are doing every day if you're meeting a calorie goal) suddenly makes it a "rule."
You obviously failed to read the rest of the posts. You are seeing what you want to see and can't look past some "math" you did and are ignoring the point of the whole thing. It's cute because even the other ladies that were in the thread pretty much saw it.
And by the way, the "math" you made up wasn't to hit a calorie goal, it was to make sure you hit some wonderful 5% number. You fail to see logic but I forgive you.
Whew, I was really gonna lose sleep over that! Thanks!0 -
Back to the OP's op, any diet is just a tool to conquer losing stored energy. The energy we use each day is quite finite compared with the amount of energy the body can store. In a perfect world, we could just stop eating until we hit a certain fitness standard. But the world is not perfect.
I do keto for now because it helps me not gain. I am not religious with it by any means, as I will have a greater amount of carbs on the weekends. But it is my tool to start carving into my stored energy in a healthy way, as it (for the most part) keeps me from overeating.
It is also worth mentioning that I dont do it just for weight loss. My mind is clearer, my workouts go farther, my workouts as well as my functioning do not depend on mealtimes, I dont get the farts, and....oh yeah, I can eat all the bacon I want.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm losing faith in CICO....
I don't believe in it because it's wrong. Just like we turned out to be wrong about fat. Etc. Etc.
You don't identify anything supporting it being wrong, and don't even explain what you mean by "it's wrong." Are you saying calories don't matter, or simply that a variety of things affect the calories in vs. calories out equation (which everyone already agrees with)?
If calories don't matter, what does?Different types of calories have different effects, 100 calories of chips is different than 100 calories of lettuce.
There are no 100 calories of chips or 100 calories of lettuce, just calories. In addition to the energy, the foods contribute different nutrients (lettuce (as opposed to spinach or some such) doesn't actually have a lot of anything and I'm not sure how you are getting 100 calories of it, but whatever). No one claims that the nutrients are identical. Also, there are somewhat different burns related to digestion, but it's unusual to have a macro mix where that makes much of a difference (that would mean a crazy amount of protein, typically, and you need either fat or carbs for energy). Also, of course there are different effects of the macros involved--chips will provide energy, for example, since they have lots of carbs and fat. Lettuce has fiber. I will agree it would be pretty impossible to get fat eating an all lettuce diet, but that's because you wouldn't be able to eat many calories and you'd feel bad. (And of course all anything diets are silly.)I have days where I eat a boiled egg and an orange and lose nothing, and then days where I gorge myself senseless on Indian buffet food (since I'm gluten-free, it's basically meat, veggies, and fat)... and then drop 5 pounds.
You can't tell how any one day affected you. It doesn't work like that. I always gorge myself on Indian food and I eat gluten, so it ends up being one of the higher carb meals I ever eat, and yet I've gone down on the scale the day after. I fasted on Good Friday last year and ate lots on Easter and yet my weight went down more on the Monday after Easter than on Holy Saturday. Pretty sure this isn't because my Easter calories magically did not count (although maybe that's a holiday miracle). Instead, it's that the scale bounces up and down for all kinds of reasons.WHAT? That doesn't fit calories-in-calories-out.
Sure it does.'Cause of stuff like metabolisms.
People's metabolism vary. My maintenance calories if I'm sedentary suck, they are about 1550. Some 21 year old 6'3 guy could be sedentary and eat lots more without gaining. That says zero about the merits of CICO. Someone with a bum thyroid will have super low maintenance calories if not medicated often. Again, that means their CO is screwed up, not that CICO doesn't work.I don't calorie count, I don't meticulously track... I put things in when I remember to. And I'm losing weight at a rate that satisfies me... 1-2 pounds a week.
Yes, many people can lose without counting calories specifically. I've done it myself. That doesn't mean that you aren't losing because of a calorie deficit. Of course you are. You've just created it through a method other than counting, which some people prefer.basically people with glucose resistance had higher success with low-carb, and people who weren't on the track to diabetes, had more success with low-fat diets in the study.
I think this is because of compliance issues, but it also might be that carbs have more of an effect (negative) on metabolism in IR people. I know various other things, like exercise, make a difference as to how foods affect you (for example, exercise tends to make people less insulin resistant).It'd be nice if weight loss was just math. But it isn't.
It is, it's just there are lots of variables and we can't include all of them. For MOST people, we can include the important ones, though. (For those with medical conditions it is more complicated sometimes.)
excellent breakdown lemurcat….
She is a role model for the threads. Very modest, kind, and knowledgable.
Thanks! That's nice of you.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC? Those are also the first foods people like to brag about in those "I can have a treat whenever I want" threads. I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
They seem to be the battleground foods. I personally don't care who eats what, the question was asked if someone on keto could have B&J, and I answered with the math that explains how and why they can. People can keep arguing about chips if they want, I'm gonna kick back with my cheesecake.
Are you going to go back and attempt to finish the too many rules conversation or are you conceding? It's your turn.
I suppose we could spend another 3 pages arguing about what the difference is between rules and simply eating within your macros. You're obviously entrenched, and I really don't care, so go ahead and proclaim a victory if it makes you feel better. I still don't see how writing the math out (the math that you are doing every day if you're meeting a calorie goal) suddenly makes it a "rule."
You obviously failed to read the rest of the posts. You are seeing what you want to see and can't look past some "math" you did and are ignoring the point of the whole thing. It's cute because even the other ladies that were in the thread pretty much saw it.
And by the way, the "math" you made up wasn't to hit a calorie goal, it was to make sure you hit some wonderful 5% number. You fail to see logic but I forgive you.
Whew, I was really gonna lose sleep over that! Thanks!
I know NDJ finds it humorous that you were attempting to stick to your guns so hard. With all you could. But unfortunately there comes a point where faulty arguments unravel and the person backs out. It's like a game of chess. Some just play it better than others.
wait, are you saying you are playing chess while others are playing checkers..??0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »Back to the OP's op, any diet is just a tool to conquer losing stored energy. The energy we use each day is quite finite compared with the amount of energy the body can store. In a perfect world, we could just stop eating until we hit a certain fitness standard. But the world is not perfect.
I do keto for now because it helps me not gain. I am not religious with it by any means, as I will have a greater amount of carbs on the weekends. But it is my tool to start carving into my stored energy in a healthy way, as it (for the most part) keeps me from overeating.
It is also worth mentioning that I dont do it just for weight loss. My mind is clearer, my workouts go farther, my workouts as well as my functioning do not depend on mealtimes, I dont get the farts, and....oh yeah, I can eat all the bacon I want.
I think about 85% of the posters in this thread can agree with that…
I know I can ...0 -
because they typically make a drastic change to eating 100% clean and viewing whole food groups as "bad' and then post a thread saying they can't eat over 1200 calories….a 250 pound male has no business eating less than 1200 calories when they could lose comfortable at say 2000 calories a day or more …..
but if it's all about CICO why not lose faster at 1200 ?
0 -
On chips and potatoes (obviously these are only correlations, can't exclude other variables) - their consumption was highly correlated with weight gain in a massive prospective study (along with other things, natch).
Problem with this is that I bet "other potatoes" includes in large part fries, which is going to be correlated with other things (as you acknowledge). It's not that eating potatoes itself would be a risk factor for gaining weight.
And interestingly, I bet if you could separate out potatoes with a higher carb percentage (like my roasted potatoes that I eat all the time along with some non-starchy veg and protein) and those where the majority of the calories are likely from fat (fast food fries, chips, etc.) that you will find the correlation only applies to the high fat items.
I am NOT anti fat, but this is one of the reasons the focus on carbs can be misleading.
I happen to think focusing on food quality is a good approach for a lot of reasons, although I usually also think it works best for most people to go incrementally, but that's really a separate issue from "why do LCHF."
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »^^This. And if you bothered to read properly there is always the caveat of also meeting your targets in terms of macros and micros. Srsly, I have yet to see anyone suggest people just blindly eat what they want without paying attention to nutritional needs.
Here's an exampleif you want to just lose weight and do not care about body composition then you can just eat in a deficit and not worry about food type, micros, macros.
More common than you think.0 -
because they typically make a drastic change to eating 100% clean and viewing whole food groups as "bad' and then post a thread saying they can't eat over 1200 calories….a 250 pound male has no business eating less than 1200 calories when they could lose comfortable at say 2000 calories a day or more …..
but if it's all about CICO why not lose faster at 1200 ?
If that is sustainable for them sure…
In my experience they usually end up binging feeling guilty, and then abandoning said weight loss program because they are "hungry all the time"…
IMO slow and steady is better and more sustainable...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »On chips and potatoes (obviously these are only correlations, can't exclude other variables) - their consumption was highly correlated with weight gain in a massive prospective study (along with other things, natch).
Problem with this is that I bet "other potatoes" includes in large part fries, which is going to be correlated with other things (as you acknowledge). It's not that eating potatoes itself would be a risk factor for gaining weight.
And interestingly, I bet if you could separate out potatoes with a higher carb percentage (like my roasted potatoes that I eat all the time along with some non-starchy veg and protein) and those where the majority of the calories are likely from fat (fast food fries, chips, etc.) that you will find the correlation only applies to the high fat items.
I am NOT anti fat, but this is one of the reasons the focus on carbs can be misleading.
I happen to think focusing on food quality is a good approach for a lot of reasons, although I usually also think it works best for most people to go incrementally, but that's really a separate issue from "why do LCHF."
I'm sure you're right, I bet the heavier health professionals did consume tons of fries, lol. I actually think I've seen that, in a more granular breakdown of that set of studies somewhere. If I recall, though, various forms of potatoes took up a few slots on the list of foods heavier people consumed. That said, I highly doubt a cup of sauteed new potatoes with skin every now and then is going to hurt anyone. The involvement of fat may or may not explain it, I don't know.
Re food quality being a separate issue - well, I don't know; most of the low carb, high protein, higher fat diets I've seen look a lot like that list of "healthy" foods. It's not keto, though, for sure.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Because those are things people insist they "won't give up" as their reason for not doing LC? Those are also the first foods people like to brag about in those "I can have a treat whenever I want" threads. I've never heard anyone say they can't do LC because they have to give up carrots, or that they splurged this weekend and worked out an extra hour so they could have a bran muffin.
They seem to be the battleground foods. I personally don't care who eats what, the question was asked if someone on keto could have B&J, and I answered with the math that explains how and why they can. People can keep arguing about chips if they want, I'm gonna kick back with my cheesecake.
Are you going to go back and attempt to finish the too many rules conversation or are you conceding? It's your turn.
I suppose we could spend another 3 pages arguing about what the difference is between rules and simply eating within your macros. You're obviously entrenched, and I really don't care, so go ahead and proclaim a victory if it makes you feel better. I still don't see how writing the math out (the math that you are doing every day if you're meeting a calorie goal) suddenly makes it a "rule."
You obviously failed to read the rest of the posts. You are seeing what you want to see and can't look past some "math" you did and are ignoring the point of the whole thing. It's cute because even the other ladies that were in the thread pretty much saw it.
And by the way, the "math" you made up wasn't to hit a calorie goal, it was to make sure you hit some wonderful 5% number. You fail to see logic but I forgive you.
Whew, I was really gonna lose sleep over that! Thanks!
I know NDJ finds it humorous that you were attempting to stick to your guns so hard. With all you could. But unfortunately there comes a point where faulty arguments unravel and the person backs out. It's like a game of chess. Some just play it better than others.
It must be strange going through life viewing how other people eat as a competition. That almost sounds disordered.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions