why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
+10 -
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.
My selective vision, or maybe I just haven't seen as many threads as you. No need to be so insulting. I've never personally seen anyone ask HOW to eat low carb. I've seen people say they were thinking of eating low carb and asking if anyone else ever did it.
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.
200 grams a day (35%) is restricting carbs…really???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.
thats par for the course0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
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 ?
Yes, I think that's a decent place to start. One reason I liked both the books I mentioned is that they agreed with me that nutrition really isn't as complicated as those of us interested in it like to make it. People aren't so ignorant they don't know what common sense is (eat some protein, eat some veggies, don't eat some huge percentage of your calories from cookies on a regular basis). As Fitzgerald said, the basics, which are what matter, are generally all things we knew as first graders.
IMO, getting obsessed with the small stuff (or making it all or nothing) is really because people don't want to do what they know they should--eating a balanced meal is boring, they don't like veggies, they are used to being able to eat whatever looks good in the moment. It's not really because there's a bunch of complex knowledge they don't know or secrets to learn. I think there's a view by some that there's an easier way than just eating balanced meals if they can only figure it out (the whole "hacks" thing) and by others that something so simple can't possibly work, but I think focusing on all that puts off the common sense approach--look at your diet and see how you can improve it and cut calories.
I've yet to run into someone on MFP who could not do that, if being honest with themselves. (Of course, having the knowledge to do it and being ready are different things.) But I am totally in favor of sharing links to nutrition information and what worked for us. I don't think it's helpful to tell newbies they must read studies about the benefits of 6 vs. 3 meals or breakfast or that they must cut added sugar or learn what gluten is, etc., however.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.
Yes if their goal is to lift weights. Let me expand people come to a thread start going on about losing weight and the need not to eat sugar/carbs to lose weight. So telling them it's unnecessary is good solid advice. As their goal is to lose weight.
Context is Everything. That's the problem with these arguments people don't put it into context0 -
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.
thats because the "sugar/carbs are bad" threads go off the rails by page four ...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.
I'm not pushing a particular path. I'm saying it's imperative to tell people the truth. Not some myth that makes them more likely to do what YOU think is in their best interest, as some seem to want to do, but the truth. Then they, as adults, can figure out what to do with that, based on what worked for lots of other people (lots of different things, of course), if they choose to listen to that, or based on what kind of diet feels like it might work for them.
I've mentioned before that I know a woman who lost a ton of weight basically eating all of her meals from fast food places. She liked them and wanted to keep going to them and just started reducing portion size and then she altered what she ordered and only after she'd lost a bunch did she start actually cooking and changing her diet more. I thought that was crazy at the time (I was in my whole foods phase even more than now), and it is not something that would have worked for me, but she thought it would work for her based on her knowledge of herself and she was right. And even though she did it "wrong" according to many here, she ended up eating a much more healthy diet and losing 100 lbs or so. The point I'm trying to make is not that it matters how you do it--I like the whole foods/nutrition approach, others like the LCHF approach, others like the "just eat less of my same foods" approach, so on. It's that truthful information and getting rid of the fears and emotions and myths is always a good thing. People shouldn't approach weight loss as if it required gnosis.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).
Someone who is a newbie at MFP has generally made the decision to log, and one of the huge benefits of logging is that it lets you understand what you are eating.
I'm not saying someone must count calories. I'm saying someone should understand how it works in reality, and not buy into crazy ideas like you have to eat a specific diet to lose. I find it hard to understand how people actually think that some foods are like fat pills--one bite and you can't lose, no matter what--but some clearly do, and having an illogical (ignorant) view does not help them.
If they then say "I can't deal with counting, I think I will be cutting calories if I cut out sweets," that's consistent with the advice I offered (although not my personal approach).0 -
flimflamfloz wrote: »
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.
to the study you posted - did they only measure BMI? I always consider BMI a garbage stat because it does not account for muscle mass. My BMI is in the obese to overweight range and right now I am like 181 pounds with about 14% body fat….so I would be wary if that was their primary measurer between groups…
but thanks for posting that is interesting…
there was one a few pages back showing no difference…so it seems to me that the studies are conflicted on this...0 -
Seems that several people that don't eat lower carb see threads that they believe it is implied sugar is the devil when it's just asking about low carb eating. That is seen in this very thread....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.
thats because the "sugar/carbs are bad" threads go off the rails by page four ...
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.
Saying that LCers like the benefit of feeling full is NOT saying that those that eat higher carb diets don't feel full. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.
ETA: if you feel full that's great for you. Personally I don't feel full after eating oatmeal or cereal. So I focus calories on eggs, butter, cheese, etc which help me feel more full. That doesn't mean YOU don't feel full on oatmeal or toast with peanut butter or whatever you eat in the morning.
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.
Saying that LCers like the benefit of feeling full is NOT saying that those that eat higher carb diets don't feel full. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.
the previous poster said "LCHF feel full and that is a benefit" the implication would be that they would not feel full on a high protein diet, which is not the case….Do you even logic?0 -
200 grams a day (35%) is restricting carbs…really???
According to the Food and Nutrition Board, carbs should be from 45% up to 65%:
https://www.iom.edu/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx
Yours are just moderately low, but still lower of what is usually recommended.
Sorry, bro, I understand it can be shocking, but you are on the low carb wagon...
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.
Saying that LCers like the benefit of feeling full is NOT saying that those that eat higher carb diets don't feel full. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.
Maybe some people wouldn't feel full? Some people wouldn't feel as satisfied with your macros. Some people wouldn't feel satisfied with mine.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.
Saying that LCers like the benefit of feeling full is NOT saying that those that eat higher carb diets don't feel full. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.
the previous poster said "LCHF feel full and that is a benefit" the implication would be that they would not feel full on a high protein diet, which is not the case….Do you even logic?
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 think you are misinterpreting what I said. I didn't say "eat what you like only calories matter." I said "calories are what matter for weight loss" (which is true--the different costs of digestion make little difference within the range of macro mixes that people really eat). AND I said that you should use that as you will, because of course what you eat affects nutrition and how satisfied you will feel. But contrary to some low carb evangelists, the actual effect of different macro mixes or different foods varies from person to person. I find potatoes quite satiating. Again, it's like how the average person does better eating breakfast or lots of mini meals, but someone who doesn't and thinks it is required will get in trouble. I could not do mini meals, ugh.
The point is that individuals should make the decision on what works best for them based on the factual information about how it works (calories are what matters, it's not true that you can't lose if you eat too much sugar).
Those arguing the contrary seem like they are worried that if people have truthful information and aren't first told what they MUST do, that they will make bad choices. Kind of seems like an argument that we should tell people that if they smoke pot they will go insane or end up on meth, because otherwise they might try it and end up potheads. I think the truth is always preferable.
I also think the basics are important for nutrition and maintaining basic health (the same kinds of things you mentioned), but I don't think there's too much risk that people are going to end up eating a completely unbalanced (extremely low protein or fat) diet (although some do seem to do okay on 80-10-10, much as I think it's not ideal), so there's no need to over complicate it. If they really look at their diets and don't see the issues, then struggle, people always say "eat more protein" or "eat more fat." But one key differences is I think people do know what a balanced meal looks like, even though some don't care.
As for threads about cutting sugar, I agree that "why cut your sugar" is an unhelpful response, but it's a weird question to start with. You cut your sugar by eating fewer foods (or smaller portions of such foods) with sugar in them, obviously. People read these threads as "how do I get the willpower to cut out sweets entirely," and the answer is that if it's a huge struggle, maybe you don't need to. (I always tell people what I did and ask what specific thing they are having trouble with, since the answer otherwise is too obvious.)
I don't think the "you must stop eating all sugar (sometimes even low carb is recommended), including fruit, until the craving goes away" is helpful either, and it's posts like that that tend to create the arguments.0 -
This ^^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 ?
Well, I always steer those looking for help on low carb to the low carb threads and correct them if they are trying to do low carb and low fat (I hope I'm not supposed to respect every macro choice even if it seems based on a misunderstanding). I ALSO tell them, especially if they seem to have bought into misinformation about low carb being necessary and are struggling, that low carb works for some because it helps with hunger, but it is the calorie deficit that causes weight loss, and that low carb is not needed. I further say that I think macro mix is individual and encourage them to try low carb if they think they might enjoy it.
On lowering sugar, I answered that before, but I give advice on those too, while pointing out that they don't need to give up added sugar (and certainly not fruit), but that I understand that people may find it helpful at least for a time and I did.
I also try not to assume they mean cutting it out when they probably just mean eating less. But I continue to find the question weird since the answer is so obvious. If they mean how not to get tempted/give in to temptation they should really ask that.0 -
I transitioned to a low carb lifestyle a little over a year ago. I used the Atkins program as a guide, and it helped me lose over 60 pounds and actually keep it off.
I am now in the pre-maintenance phase. My diary is public so you can see what that looks like for me. I eat a lot of dark chocolate, greek yogurt, berries, nuts, veggies, and a moderate amount of protein and cheese.
While I didn’t pay attention to calories while I was losing weight, that’s not to say calories didn’t matter. I had to have a significant caloric deficit to lose as much weight as quickly as I did. The beauty of it was I didn’t realize or even think about it.*
Yes, I believe you need a caloric deficit in order to lose weight, but I’ve also come to realize there is a lot more to it than just CICO. The best result of this lifestyle change was actually not the weight loss. It got me asking questions about the quality of my food, where it comes from, how my body reacts to different types of food, and I started researching beyond just the Google and Yahoo News headlines.
I really like this lecture by the author Jonathan Bailor. A light bulb really went off for me when I saw this, and I highly recommend it. Favorite quote: “If you focus on the quality of the food you eat, the quantity will take care of itself.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ewexMZ1-o
*Some low carbers still need to watch calories as their bodies do not give them the signal for being full, or there is an emotional eating component that needs to be addressed. It is very possible to overeat on a low carb diet and not lose weight. Like with any way of eating, it can be taken to extremes, misunderstood, or done incorrectly.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »200 grams a day (35%) is restricting carbs…really???
According to the Food and Nutrition Board, carbs should be from 45% up to 65%:
https://www.iom.edu/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx
Yours are just moderately low, but still lower of what is usually recommended.
Sorry, bro, I understand it can be shocking, but you are on the low carb wagon...
LOL @ 200g of carbs being low carb....
Nice 12 year old "report"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.
Sometimes, and I've seen it happen. If someone is overweight and feels uncomfortable running or hates running and posts about struggling with it, people--correctly, IMO--tell that person that running or other intense exercise is not necessary, that you can start (and even continue) just by walking, that there are other exercises they might enjoy.
If someone is posting about loving running and people tell them to stop, that's obnoxious, but I don't agree that happens. I've posted lots of times about limiting the amount of sugar I eat (as does basically everyone dieting), and no one cares. Moreover, I've posted lots about actually cutting out added sugar from time to time (I did in January, as well as in the past), and no one has criticized me for that. I get that my strategies may not be what others would like or consider sensible, but I also did not start a thread in January about how hard cutting out sugar was and asking how I could keep from eating that devil sugar.
When people ask me how to cut down I post about various strategies including the fact I have cut it out at times and no one gets rude about that, so I have to assume THAT'S not what people are objecting to, but either the moralizing (eating sugar is BAD), claims that cutting it out is NECESSARY for all, or analogies with addiction (which I personally think are counterproductive and wrong).0 -
-
I've tried low carb and I do find I feel less hungry and get less blood sugar swings
( subjectively, I'm not actually tracking my blood sugar). However when I logged the calories of what I was eating on the low carb program it was under 1300 per day.
I just don't find it sustainable though. I get major carb cravings and tend to over eat them when I go off the plan. So in the long run this kind of eating plan just doesn't work for me.
I still try to stick to complex high fiber carbs and try to avoid white flour and sugar as I don't think there is much nutrition in those foods and I don't exercise enough to burn them off.
I think nutritionally dense foods with a good mix of healthy fats, protein and complex carbs is a more realistic plan for long term weight management.
CICO is a basic concept of science and I don't think it can be debated unless the laws of thermodynamics have suddenly changed. If that is true then we are all in trouble
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.
thats because the "sugar/carbs are bad" threads go off the rails by page four ...
not just the sugar is the devil threads end up like that. I've seen many threads where the OP is asking how to cut back on carbs or sugar (without mentioning that they think carbs are bad) and pictures of Donuts show up. I understand asking people why..because no one should HAVE to completely cut things they really want to eat without medical reason..but it gets out of hand far too often.
...i eat and enjoy low carb Cheesecake.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »200 grams a day (35%) is restricting carbs…really???
According to the Food and Nutrition Board, carbs should be from 45% up to 65%:
https://www.iom.edu/Reports/2002/Dietary-Reference-Intakes-for-Energy-Carbohydrate-Fiber-Fat-Fatty-Acids-Cholesterol-Protein-and-Amino-Acids.aspx
Yours are just moderately low, but still lower of what is usually recommended.
Sorry, bro, I understand it can be shocking, but you are on the low carb wagon...
That is a 13 year old report..
How many low carvers get 200 grams of carbs a day??????0 -
-
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.
Saying that LCers like the benefit of feeling full is NOT saying that those that eat higher carb diets don't feel full. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.
the previous poster said "LCHF feel full and that is a benefit" the implication would be that they would not feel full on a high protein diet, which is not the case….Do you even logic?
I personally wouldn't..
but I would never say that it applies to everyone else.
Maybe wording it as 'lchf keeps me satiated moreso than anything else I've tried' would have been better. Not everyone is a wordsmith.
Or maybe I give other people too much credit.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
and I will repeat my question ..how many low carbers are eating 200 grams of carbs a day?0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »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.
Saying that LCers like the benefit of feeling full is NOT saying that those that eat higher carb diets don't feel full. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.
the previous poster said "LCHF feel full and that is a benefit" the implication would be that they would not feel full on a high protein diet, which is not the case….Do you even logic?
I personally wouldn't..
but I would never say that it applies to everyone else.
Maybe wording it as 'lchf keeps me satiated moreso than anything else I've tried' would have been better. Not everyone is a wordsmith.
Or maybe I give other people too much credit.
I don't understand how saying "*I* feel more full" equates to "everybody feels full eating low carb and can't possibly feel that way eating any other way". What people experience doesn't have to be the same as you experience.
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
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions