why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. Not because they're special snowflakes that violate the laws of physics, but because that's not how they go about things.
As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories or (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, send a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
I'm *sure* your intentions are awesomely positive, but knowingly or not, you are in effect trying to put people in your particular box. The advice may be consistent with the theory of CICO - but people don't live inside theoretical constructs.
this is probably the most ridiculous thing you have posted in a while.
so figuring out how to eat the appropriate number of calories is not going to help someone, really? So if someone is eating 1200 and complaining about being hungry all the time, and based on their stats they should be netting 1500, telling them to eat to that number is going to hurt them?
0 -
I will be the first to admit I'm not good at will power. It's very difficult to me to eat half of a donut. If I don't eat low carb, I've found I don't make very nutritious choices. I don't make space for sweet potatoes or a banana. Ive started days with the best of intentions. Then I go to work and see donuts. I play this game where I barter with myself. I'll take half or the whole and then swear I'll eat a low calorie lunch. But then 2 hours later and I'm hungry. And still thinking about the other half of that donut. Lunch comes and I don't stick to low calorie options. At this point I feel that the day is shot and it's a snowball effect that I just keep making choices that lead to a calorie surplus. I don't have the discipline to eat treats in moderation at this moment. It may not make a lot of sense, but none is easier than a little to me.
I don't think carbs only come in the form of pop tarts and ice cream, but those are what I have trouble with. And I'd rather eat 100 calories of sour cream than 100 calories of rice or 100 calories of apples. I also don't find a snack of fruit very satisfying.0 -
See now I'm confused again, could someone please explain?lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. Not because they're special snowflakes that violate the laws of physics, but because that's not how they go about things.
As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories or (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, send a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
I'm *sure* your intentions are awesomely positive, but knowingly or not, you are in effect trying to put people in your particular box. The advice may be consistent with the theory of CICO - but people don't live inside theoretical constructs.
To me what Lemurcat made sense. And I don't understand the * around *before* and *sure* in Mr_knight's post meant. I'm not kidding, I really don't get it. This may have nothing to do with losing weight but more to do with understanding forums. It's tough getting old.
I think he's using the astricks instead of italics.
0 -
Thank you Nony_Mouse. That's what my daughter thought too. MelRC117, I feel the same way but logging was what made me think about it. I wouldn't eat a donut today either, but if I caved and logged it, and told myself I could have made a better choice instead of calling myself bad, I'd feel better. That's why I believe so admittedly in logging. I quit logging I gain weight.
MelRC117, You got this girl!!!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't agree (with Mr. Knight), and would seriously enjoy a truly sensible discussion on this point.
The way I think of it is that correct information is necessary, because it helps people make sensible decisions. Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two. The reason step one is step one is (a) myths do not help--fear that you can't lose if you eat a chocolate or piece of pizza is not useful in any way; and (b) what is actually satiating is going to vary, as this discussion demonstrates. For example, on average it seems possible to argue that many benefit from eating every 2 hours, not eating after 7 pm, and eating no potatoes. None of those things would help me, and in fact all would make me less likely to succeed (the first two would have caused me to give up).
Thus, I think it makes more sense to tell people what has worked for you in terms of being satiated (if they are struggling), but to let them figure it out. IME, it's quite common for people to incrementally move toward higher quality diets while doing this.
What I don't think helps is to tell people who eat lots of fast food or the like that they must cut out processed foods and cook everything from scratch. I happen to prefer to cook from scratch and dislike fast food (and never eat it), but it's obvious that someone just starting out might do better trying some better quality ready made meals or semi homemade stuff or better menu items at McD's and the like. Why overwhelm them, especially when it does not actually matter for weight loss?
Similarly, if I think I must eat skinless boneless chicken breast, steamed broccoli, and brown rice for every meal but breakfast (for which I have a smoothie), I'd quit now. People who are just starting out and have their heads filled with ideas from women's mags or who knows what on the internet may have all sorts of depressing ideas about what diet food is. I think it's best to stress that weight loss is just about calories--experiment and see where your diet can be cut (yes, it probably is sweets or fast food for many). And also to stress that you don't have to give up everything pleasurable about food. I was lucky because I like vegetables and like cooking and so find it easy to create low calorie healthy meals I like, but I think lots of people don't get to that point because they can't get over the "I must deprive myself and never have anything fun" when dieting.
Mr. Knight does not play fair. He only responds to a few posts, making it difficult to respond to him. And worse, he selectively quotes. You can write 3 paragraphs, and he will choose 2 sentences out of context and only respond to those. He will leave his beer chugging emojis, and then won't return, like he is above the rest of us.
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »I think he's using the astricks instead of italics.
If he is using the old Usenet conventions, they are: *bold* /italic/ _underlined_
0 -
I think that the problem with many people is that they are basically uneducated, so they should not only learn how to lose weight, but also how to eat healthily.lemurcat12 wrote: »Why overwhelm them, especially when it does not actually matter for weight loss?
How to not overwhelm them? I don't know, maybe just a link to choosemyplate.gov ?0 -
most of the time when I am talking calories macros/micro goals always seem to come up ….
yes that's true you generally do and I note that you restrict carbohydrate intake as well from your diary.
There are indeed many people that focus on calories while paying attention to nutrition, even if not explicitly mentioned, there are also those who speak / write as if the human body is an engine or reactor and that the composition of the input and the quality of the outcome are not factors to consider. I quoted an example.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't agree (with Mr. Knight), and would seriously enjoy a truly sensible discussion on this point.
The way I think of it is that correct information is necessary, because it helps people make sensible decisions. Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two. The reason step one is step one is (a) myths do not help--fear that you can't lose if you eat a chocolate or piece of pizza is not useful in any way; and (b) what is actually satiating is going to vary, as this discussion demonstrates. For example, on average it seems possible to argue that many benefit from eating every 2 hours, not eating after 7 pm, and eating no potatoes. None of those things would help me, and in fact all would make me less likely to succeed (the first two would have caused me to give up).
Thus, I think it makes more sense to tell people what has worked for you in terms of being satiated (if they are struggling), but to let them figure it out. IME, it's quite common for people to incrementally move toward higher quality diets while doing this.
What I don't think helps is to tell people who eat lots of fast food or the like that they must cut out processed foods and cook everything from scratch. I happen to prefer to cook from scratch and dislike fast food (and never eat it), but it's obvious that someone just starting out might do better trying some better quality ready made meals or semi homemade stuff or better menu items at McD's and the like. Why overwhelm them, especially when it does not actually matter for weight loss?
Similarly, if I think I must eat skinless boneless chicken breast, steamed broccoli, and brown rice for every meal but breakfast (for which I have a smoothie), I'd quit now. People who are just starting out and have their heads filled with ideas from women's mags or who knows what on the internet may have all sorts of depressing ideas about what diet food is. I think it's best to stress that weight loss is just about calories--experiment and see where your diet can be cut (yes, it probably is sweets or fast food for many). And also to stress that you don't have to give up everything pleasurable about food. I was lucky because I like vegetables and like cooking and so find it easy to create low calorie healthy meals I like, but I think lots of people don't get to that point because they can't get over the "I must deprive myself and never have anything fun" when dieting.
^This. Beautifully put.
0 -
I could care less what people do, but don't come on the threads and say that low carb is not low calorie.
you've said that before. is 2000 calories a day at 5% carbohydrate low carb ? is it low calorie ? How about at 5000 and 5%.
Perhaps you're thinking "don't say a low carb diet is not a low calorie diet" but that isn't what you're writing.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. Not because they're special snowflakes that violate the laws of physics, but because that's not how they go about things.
As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories or (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, send a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
I'm *sure* your intentions are awesomely positive, but knowingly or not, you are in effect trying to put people in your particular box. The advice may be consistent with the theory of CICO - but people don't live inside theoretical constructs.
Wut? You're just arguing for the sake of it.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. Not because they're special snowflakes that violate the laws of physics, but because that's not how they go about things.
As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories or (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, send a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
I'm *sure* your intentions are awesomely positive, but knowingly or not, you are in effect trying to put people in your particular box. The advice may be consistent with the theory of CICO - but people don't live inside theoretical constructs.
Wut? You're just arguing for the sake of it.
LOL at the surprise
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate number of calories in a way that makes you satisfied is step two.
That's what worked for you. And it works for others, as well. But for many, many others, that path will not work. Not because they're special snowflakes that violate the laws of physics, but because that's not how they go about things.
As but one example, many need to get hold of the choices they make eating (ie, restrict some/many foods) *before* they start thinking about calories or (or, god forbid, logging).
So great - offer this as the path you walked and succeeded on - nothing wrong with that. But writing tl;dr polemnics about what "is" step one and what "is" step two isn't going to help much, and it will, in reality, send a lot of struggling people down the wrong path, if they listen to it.
I'm *sure* your intentions are awesomely positive, but knowingly or not, you are in effect trying to put people in your particular box. The advice may be consistent with the theory of CICO - but people don't live inside theoretical constructs.
Wut? You're just arguing for the sake of it.
LOL at the surprise
I'm still fairly new and uncaffeinated enough to express how he went to a new level with this one.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't agree (with Mr. Knight), and would seriously enjoy a truly sensible discussion on this point.
The way I think of it is that correct information is necessary, because it helps people make sensible decisions. Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one.
I am more in line with Mr Knight, the specific thing I have an issue with is saying to someone "eat what you like only calories matter" when there's plenty of evidence that the composition of what you eat is a factor. This sort of advice is frequently pushed at someone opening a thread asking about how to cut their sugar or how to eat low carb / keto or whatever.
I would say step one is to eat a decent amount of protein, probably ~75 grams a day if you're losing weight. There's a certain amount of essential fats you also need, and an amount of fat that'll keep your bile system healthy - let's say 30 grams a day. So far I'm at 570 calories. Some might add a fiber requirement.
Beyond that point you can make individual choices based on activity levels, culture, preference, belief system, religion, morals, taste, satiety, fashion, the latest book or blog you read or whatever. So step 2 is to fill up to your target calories with your choices & preferences.
I hope I have made the difference clear here - you don't need "a low calorie meal" to lose weight but you do need to fulfil some basic requirements and not eat too much.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't agree (with Mr. Knight), and would seriously enjoy a truly sensible discussion on this point.
The way I think of it is that correct information is necessary, because it helps people make sensible decisions. Knowing that calories are what matter for weight loss is step one.
I am more in line with Mr Knight, the specific thing I have an issue with is saying to someone "eat what you like only calories matter" when there's plenty of evidence that the composition of what you eat is a factor. This sort of advice is frequently pushed at someone opening a thread asking about how to cut their sugar or how to eat low carb / keto or whatever.
I would say step one is to eat a decent amount of protein, probably ~75 grams a day if you're losing weight. There's a certain amount of essential fats you also need, and an amount of fat that'll keep your bile system healthy - let's say 30 grams a day. So far I'm at 570 calories. Some might add a fiber requirement.
Beyond that point you can make individual choices based on activity levels, culture, preference, belief system, religion, morals, taste, satiety, fashion, the latest book or blog you read or whatever. So step 2 is to fill up to your target calories with your choices & preferences.
I hope I have made the difference clear here - you don't need "a low calorie meal" to lose weight but you do need to fulfil some basic requirements and not eat too much.
The context of the "eat what you like only calories matter" discussions need to be introduced here for a minute, because I think it's getting lost. When that statement is made and just left without any qualifiers about overall diet, it is usually in the context of a single food that a poster has mentioned, or a one time slip.
In a case like that, responses to that poster range from "eat what you like, only calories matter" to those that have more meaning mentioning that occasionally indulgences in an otherwise balanced diet are fine.
I think you're overstating the incidence of the "only calories matter" advice happening, particularly in the context of it happening in vacuum.
0 -
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
yep, certainly restricted carbohydrate and a sugar target of 90 grams. Nothing I would take issue with ;-)0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
I think you're overstating the incidence of the "only calories matter" advice happening, particularly in the context of it happening in vacuum.
This is possible, it's also possible you're understating it. We see confirmation bias wherever we recognise it. It didn't take me long to find one to quote, that's for sure. Perhaps I should count them.
It would be nice if someone asking for advice on how to do a low carb diet or reduce their sugar intake could be helped rather than told it's unnecessary or they're doing it all wrong, don't you think ?
0 -
mastakoala wrote: »Weight loss and optimal health/proper nutrition are in on the surface able to be 2 separate things. In reality they should be, need to be intertwined.
Absolutely this - I think this sums up the issue perfectly. I think that research and empirical evidence support that input quality/type and calories consumed both play a role in overall weight.
There's a ton of evidence that CICO is a good measure. There's also a ton of evidence that CI has a lot to do with how much your body can physically absorb and process, and CO has a lot to do with to what extent your body processes input and excretes the rest. So the evidence shows that CICO is also very nuanced and can be hard to use - especially in specialized diets.
It worries me that so many people treat the discussion as an argument to be won or lost - they pick apart nuances in the evidence while ignoring anything that does not support their view. The major arguments for and against CICO's effectiveness both have merit, and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
I think this sums it up quite well. CICO works in the context of your food's nutritional profile.0 -
Here is a link to some articles I just found:1. they were not calorie restricting (however they were losing weight)
2. if they ate 1200 calories of a regular diet of say 30% carbs they did not lose, but when they ate a 1200 calories "low carb" diet they lost weight.
3. throughout the course of the thread others came in and made the argument that CICO did not apply when was going low carb.
http://authoritynutrition.com/randomized-controlled-trials-in-nutrition/
I picked one randomly and read the "results" of the experiment:
Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents
"Weight outcomes included both the change in BMI-Z over time and the absolute weight loss over time. The mean BMI-Z for the subjects in the HPLC (High Protein Low Carbs) group was significantly lower at 13 weeks (Table I), and the decrease was significantly greater than that for the LF (Low Fat) group (p=0.03, Figure). Both groups maintained significant reductions in BMI-Z at the follow-up time points: -0.21±0.07 (p=0.01) and -0.14±0.04 (p=0.01) for HPLC (n=13) and LF (n=14), respectively at 24 weeks; and -0.22±0.09 (p=0.04) and -0.15±0.04 (p=0.002), for HPLC (n=11) and LF (n=11), respectively, at 36 weeks (Figure). Thirty percent of the subjects lost at least 10% of their baseline weight, and 24% lost between 5 and 10% of baseline weight; neither of these weight loss categories differed by group. By the 24 week follow-up point, the HPLC group weight loss compared with baseline (-6.31 kg) was still significant (p = 0.01), whereas that of the LF group (-1.41 kg) was no longer significantly different from baseline. At the 36 week follow-up point, although both groups' weight was lower than baseline, the difference was not significant for either group or between groups."
Source:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892194/
Now assuming the study is correct, it would say that CICO does not necessarily apply *strictly*, as the study showed us that HPLC =/= LF for example (of course CICO applies though, otherwise you could eat an infinite quantity of proteins/fat, as long as you're going low fat - which is not even realistic).
So there are differences between a HPLC diet and a LF diet, so that would mean you could technically eat more (more calories) with the HPLC diet and achieve the same as the LF diet.
Also, with higher proteins, I have generally experienced a better sensation of fullness personally, so if it applies to others, it might be easier to be stricter about the diet and not eat/cheat as much.
The question "why do you think this is?" is a bit unfair to the low carbers, since nutrition is a relatively new field of study and there are still many things about our bodies we do not know.if you really believe that CICO does not apply, then I would be curious as to why you think this…
There is a lot of *kitten* going around though, I give you that (precisely because we have still little in the way of explanations).
Often we can only observe the results of experiments, see what works or has worked for others and make up our own theories if we care or simply try to see if it works for ourselves.
Same goes about bodybuilding and what people think works/doesn't work.
I'm not a low carber myself, but tried if a few times for short periods of time - this has been my experience too, and why I only used it a couple of times to shake my diet around and stop a plateau.I actually tried low carb and it was not for me. My energy in the gym was non-existent and i would end up binging on whatever carbs I had in the house.0 -
I'll say nothing on the correct/incorrectness of the belief, only that it goes along with a way of eating that helps some people reach their goals in a way that feels comfortable to them. It's not for everyone and it wasn't for me... and I'm happy for everyone who has done well with low carb.0
-
Isn't telling someone they're unnecessary helping them?mamapeach910 wrote: »
I think you're overstating the incidence of the "only calories matter" advice happening, particularly in the context of it happening in vacuum.
This is possible, it's also possible you're understating it. We see confirmation bias wherever we recognise it. It didn't take me long to find one to quote, that's for sure. Perhaps I should count them.
It would be nice if someone asking for advice on how to do a low carb diet or reduce their sugar intake could be helped rather than told it's unnecessary or they're doing it all wrong, don't you think ?
0 -
Isn't telling someone they're unnecessary helping them?mamapeach910 wrote: »
I think you're overstating the incidence of the "only calories matter" advice happening, particularly in the context of it happening in vacuum.
This is possible, it's also possible you're understating it. We see confirmation bias wherever we recognise it. It didn't take me long to find one to quote, that's for sure. Perhaps I should count them.
It would be nice if someone asking for advice on how to do a low carb diet or reduce their sugar intake could be helped rather than told it's unnecessary or they're doing it all wrong, don't you think ?
Is it helping people who ask about taking up running to tell them that running is unnecessary? Because it is, but it would be generally viewed as trollish to go into all the running threads and tell people not to bother.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
I think you're overstating the incidence of the "only calories matter" advice happening, particularly in the context of it happening in vacuum.
This is possible, it's also possible you're understating it. We see confirmation bias wherever we recognise it. It didn't take me long to find one to quote, that's for sure. Perhaps I should count them.
It would be nice if someone asking for advice on how to do a low carb diet or reduce their sugar intake could be helped rather than told it's unnecessary or they're doing it all wrong, don't you think ?
That's not really a question that needs answering, since it never gets asked. I think most people who come on wanting to cut carbs know how to do it already.
It gets refuted when people think they HAVE to do it lose weight. They're not universally told that it's all wrong, and most of the non-low carbers in this thread tell them to give it a try, and if it works, great, if it doesn't there are other options. They are always advised that the idea is to find a sustainable way of eating is best.
The thing is, you're always going to have outliers on the forums who advise in the extreme. That can't be helped.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I think you're overstating the incidence of the "only calories matter" advice happening, particularly in the context of it happening in vacuum.
This is possible, it's also possible you're understating it. We see confirmation bias wherever we recognise it. It didn't take me long to find one to quote, that's for sure. Perhaps I should count them.
It would be nice if someone asking for advice on how to do a low carb diet or reduce their sugar intake could be helped rather than told it's unnecessary or they're doing it all wrong, don't you think ?
That's not really a question that needs answering, since it never gets asked. I think most people who come on wanting to cut carbs know how to do it already.
It gets refuted when people think they HAVE to do it lose weight. They're not universally told that it's all wrong, and most of the non-low carbers in this thread tell them to give it a try, and if it works, great, if it doesn't there are other options. They are always advised that the idea is to find a sustainable way of eating is best.
The thing is, you're always going to have outliers on the forums who advise in the extreme. That can't be helped.
Lol, that's not what happens, though. What often happens is a 10-page thread of pictures of donuts and cheesecake.
0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson 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
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
What are you trying to say here?
I can't feel full because I don't wait 8-16 hours between meals?
No, what I mean is that I see tons of threads about how people have reached their calorie allowance by 3 or 4 pm, with 5 or 6 hours to go and come on the threads looking for advice. I dont have this issue. Most days, I dont have the opportunity to overeat. I am not saying that anyone who has carbs doesnt feel full. You said that. I am just saying that I can operate all day on just a few hundred calories of fat in the morning, whereas -most- people will have to eat something to sustain. That is all I am getting at.
But this is the same for any diet.
There are LCers who do have the opportunity to overeat. Who don't feel full.
There are plenty of non LCers who feel full.
It's not black and white.
0 -
Dunno.
Some people also believe that Jesus dude was sent to Earth to redeem original sin but I'll be damned if I can understand that one either.
We are emotional, pattern seeking mammals and we are difficult to reason with. Faith and belief are usually much stronger forces than logic. If someone is happy doing what they are doing and they are not harming themselves or others I will probably support them. I have grown far more interested in psychological / behavioural approaches than strict physiology.
If they start evangelising however...0 -
Isn't telling someone they're unnecessary helping them?
No, it usually isn't. If they specifically want help doing something liek setting macros or a recipe or whatever then saying "I wouldn't start from here" probably isn't helping them, as can be judged from their reaction.
We even had a TV character whose reply to everything was "you don't want to be doing that" aka The Know-it-all guy.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I think you're overstating the incidence of the "only calories matter" advice happening, particularly in the context of it happening in vacuum.
This is possible, it's also possible you're understating it. We see confirmation bias wherever we recognise it. It didn't take me long to find one to quote, that's for sure. Perhaps I should count them.
It would be nice if someone asking for advice on how to do a low carb diet or reduce their sugar intake could be helped rather than told it's unnecessary or they're doing it all wrong, don't you think ?
That's not really a question that needs answering, since it never gets asked.
OK, your selective vision makes discussion pointless. Perhaps this is the underlying problem, some don't see a request for help as such but merely as an opportunity to have a go at their choices. When they or others say "don't do that, do this" they later say that nobody ever says that, etc.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions