why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Interesting. I'm wondering what macro targets you are thinking of here.
When I started I was on pretty low calories (1250) and did about 110 grams of protein, I think (35%), which is more than I think is reasonably necessary for someone of my size (although that much or more works for me because I love lots of protein-containing foods), with 30% fat and 35% carbs--that's kind of just how it naturally broke down when I started focusing on getting in my protein and cutting out foods that didn't seem to have the bang for the buck according to my taste preferences. But I wouldn't find more protein than that helpful (although I eat more now because I have more calories) and wouldn't consider that either high protein or low carb. Thus, I'm just curious how people are defining their terms.
I also agree with you pointing at that some of this is a function of calories. I've raised my calories by a lot (I'm trying to ease up into maintenance level), and at 1800 and above I had to raise my carbs percentage because I don't want more than say 125 grams of protein as a goal (I'm 125 lbs), and I seem to feel best at about 50-60 grams of fat, which left me back at about 50% carbs. (Also I find that if I'm more active--as I am when I have a higher TDEE, especially since I do a lot of cardio stuff--I naturally tend to want more carbs.)
The percentages you list as targets, in the 35/30/35 range (protein/fat/carbs), are about what seems to be "normal" for me if I am eating at maintenance level with light exercise (like daily half hour walks). Cutting calories I do best upping the protein percentage to keep above a minimum number of grams (which I shoot for over 120), increasing excercise I do best upping the carbs. It's a teeny bit more complicated than "I eat what makes me feel good" since it's pretty easy to tell myself that a diet of 35% dark chocolate, 30% pizza and 35% Guinness Stout makes me feel good...but it's not all that much more complicated than that.
Side note: I'm a history buff, and at a visit to Fort Snelling in Minnesota last summer I had an opportunity to talk to some folks involved in the WWII hunger/starvation studies that were conducted there, upon which a lot of nutrition science is actually still based. I was fascinated to learn that one of the major side effects noted in all the participants, was that calorie restriction resulted in them being obsessed with food, recipes, analyzing the content of their food and arguing over its relative health merits and nutritive content, arguing over who was losing weight faster and why, etc etc. These thoughts and behaviors were a biological side effect of the calorie restriction (and furthermore, the behaviors actually persisted long after the end of the caloric restriction portion of the experiment). So, that just seemed of interest to me--it seems logical that we would have a lot of that type of behavior going on in a forum full of people who are basically putting themselves through a calorie-restriction experiment.0 -
Have you guys hear of the "Twinkie Diet" ? http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
"Being overweight is the central problem that leads to complications like high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol. For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months."
I think that this kind of diet is probably not nutritionally sound in the long run. However, the fact his overall health improved from weight loss alone shows how being overweight is really the problem for many of the health problems we face.
It also shows that CICO is the reason for weight loss regardless of what those calories are.
I don't think I'll be trying this diet anytime soon but I will be eating nutritionally dense foods, watching my calorie intake and exercising to get to were I want to be.0 -
ogmomma2012 wrote: »ogmomma2012 wrote: »Low carb still requires calorie counting. /thread
do you low carb? Just curious….
I did for about a month. It's not hard to fill up on leafy greens, meat and a little cheese even when your NET carbs are below 50g. I did keto, it was sustainable in my household but I stuck to it long enough to understand WHY people on low carb say they don't count calories. It's because fat and protien is more satifying, so most low-carbers tend to eat less anyway. I have to run to lunch now, be back in 30.
I think she's right. Generally speaking I try to eat low carb but I still end up with 40% at the end of the week anyway. But, I find on days when I really try to stay away from carbs I do MUCH better because I am full and don't find the need to snack. For instance, I avoid bread as much as possible... my typical lunch is a salad or soup. Yesterday someone brought in sandwiches from Panera and within an hour of eating lunch I felt hungry again and wanting to snack when usually that's not the case.
0 -
I'd be curious as to whether anyone had scientific evidence to support CICO? All I've seen is refutations, as far as actual scientific studies.
This is a well referenced post: http://evidencemag.com/why-calories-count/
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.long
http://nutritionreviews.oxfordjournals.org/content/67/5/249
Beat me to it but to be fair I stole the links from you originally.
Now for some humor...
0 -
Leanbean65 wrote: »Have you guys hear of the "Twinkie Diet" ? http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
"Being overweight is the central problem that leads to complications like high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol. For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months."
I think that this kind of diet is probably not nutritionally sound in the long run. However, the fact his overall health improved from weight loss alone shows how being overweight is really the problem for many of the health problems we face.
It also shows that CICO is the reason for weight loss regardless of what those calories are.
I don't think I'll be trying this diet anytime soon but I will be eating nutritionally dense foods, watching my calorie intake and exercising to get to were I want to be.
This was a great exercise ... but I want to point a few things out.
1. This was done for 2 months. Not a long time. In my personal experience, in reducing calories (and eating high carb) I also lost a lot of weight in the first two months just by restricting calories. It was after that where weight loss began to plateau
2. There's a decent chance this person is not sensitive to a high-carbs, was not insulin resistant (yet).0 -
Here's an article on a study that showed that there was more weight loss on a low-carb diet than a low-fat diet of the same caloric intake:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432
0 -
Leanbean65 wrote: »Have you guys hear of the "Twinkie Diet" ? http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
"Being overweight is the central problem that leads to complications like high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol. For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months."
I think that this kind of diet is probably not nutritionally sound in the long run. However, the fact his overall health improved from weight loss alone shows how being overweight is really the problem for many of the health problems we face.
It also shows that CICO is the reason for weight loss regardless of what those calories are.
I don't think I'll be trying this diet anytime soon but I will be eating nutritionally dense foods, watching my calorie intake and exercising to get to were I want to be.
This was a great exercise ... but I want to point a few things out.
1. This was done for 2 months. Not a long time. In my personal experience, in reducing calories (and eating high carb) I also lost a lot of weight in the first two months just by restricting calories. It was after that where weight loss began to plateau
2. There's a decent chance this person is not sensitive to a high-carbs, was not insulin resistant (yet).
Strong fallacies0 -
I would have thought there would be more consensus on what low carb is...
Feinman published a suggestion with his rationaleVery low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet (VLCKD)
•Carbohydrate, 20–50 g/d or <10% of the 2000 kcal/d diet, whether or not ketosis occurs. Derived from levels of carbohydrate required to induce ketosis in most people.
•Recommended early phase (“induction”) of popular diets such as Atkins Diet or Protein Power.
Low-carbohydrate diet: <130 g/d or <26% total energy
•The ADA definition of 130 g/d as its recommended minimum.
Moderate-Carbohydrate Diet: 26%–45%
•Upper limit, approximate carbohydrate intake before the obesity epidemic (43%).
High-Carbohydrate Diet: >45%
•Recommended target on ADA websites.
•The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends 45%–65% carbohydrate. The average American diet is estimated to be ∼49% carbohydrate.
Carbohydrate Consumption (NHANES)†:
Men
•1971–1974: 42% (∼250 g for 2450 kcal/d)
•1999–2000: 49% (∼330 g for 2600 kcal/d)
Women
•1971–1974: 45% (∼150 g for 1550 kcal/d)
•1999–2000: 52% (∼230 g for 1900 kcal/d)
and a recent paper compared two diets
"a very low carbohydrate, ketogenic diet (≤50 g carbohydrates per day not including fiber) "
"the MCCR group were encouraged to derive 45% to 50% of their calories from carbohydrates" - Moderate Carbohydrate Calorie Restricted.
So by that I am on a low carb diet eating over 200g per day because of percentages...
0 -
Leanbean65 wrote: »Have you guys hear of the "Twinkie Diet" ? http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
"Being overweight is the central problem that leads to complications like high blood pressure, diabetes and high cholesterol. For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months."
I think that this kind of diet is probably not nutritionally sound in the long run. However, the fact his overall health improved from weight loss alone shows how being overweight is really the problem for many of the health problems we face.
It also shows that CICO is the reason for weight loss regardless of what those calories are.
I don't think I'll be trying this diet anytime soon but I will be eating nutritionally dense foods, watching my calorie intake and exercising to get to were I want to be.
This was a great exercise ... but I want to point a few things out.
1. This was done for 2 months. Not a long time. In my personal experience, in reducing calories (and eating high carb) I also lost a lot of weight in the first two months just by restricting calories. It was after that where weight loss began to plateau
2. There's a decent chance this person is not sensitive to a high-carbs, was not insulin resistant (yet).
to point two, are you sensitive to high carbs? If yes, it should of been included in your original post about losing more once switching to low carb....0 -
Just popping in to say I am amazed this thread is still going. Some shots fired but more or less civil. Nice to see0
-
Here's an article on a study that showed that there was more weight loss on a low-carb diet than a low-fat diet of the same caloric intake:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432
Cherry picking one study that is severely flawed. Read the entire study rather than just the abstract. There is more than one low variable here that is manipulated; protein. Why is protein lower in the high carb group and higher in the high fat group. And the amount is VERY significant as the high fat group got 50% more. Who doesn't understand that protein needs increase with dietary restriction? Here is the cliffs notes in case you are physiologically challenged; the high carb group got muscle cannibalism but the high fat group had it preserved (somewhat). WOW!
Also read the review studies.0 -
Here's an article on a study that showed that there was more weight loss on a low-carb diet than a low-fat diet of the same caloric intake:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432
yes, and there are other studies showing no difference which were posted earlier in this thread. so there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other.0 -
I'm new to all this and want to thank the OP for this thread! I'm low carb due to medical issues - recently diagnosed, only started low carb a little under a month (doctor/nutritionist designed specific diet). I've been reading many of the low carb threads and have been confused as well by the idea that LCers are not calorie restricting and still losing weight.
Yes, I lost weight prior to starting on LC and I tracked by calories. Now, I track my carbs so I don't pay as much attention to my calories, however, I STILL have a deficit in calories so of course I'm still losing weight. I'm restricted to 50-60g of carbs a day which basically means lots of veggies and meat. I'm also unable to eat dairy, eggs, soy, any grains & other things (I have a long list of "no" and short list of "yes"). While that is a very restrictive diet (not by choice), I am under no illusion that the weight loss is due to the calorie deficit. I also can't say I'm losing more now that I'm LC. Maybe, slightly, but it's only been a few weeks so perhaps I will lose more rapidly, as others claim.
However, what I DO equate to LC/keto/restrictive diet are other things such as less bloating, less joint pain, etc. That being said, I also think that is because of my medical issues (autoimmune illness, celiac, diabetes, thyroid) the way I felt improved because of eliminating my "triggers". I do not believe everyone would feel as good as I do because everyone is different. I admit, at times, I am almost afraid to say I'm LC/keto/restrictive... whatever diet you want to call it... because it is almost like a cult! Some followers seem to believe it is the only way, the best way, and those who don't believe or follow just don't understand the perfection that is this diet
But, thanks again, learning a lot!0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »Leanbean65 wrote: »
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.
Healthy fats, you say.....about 70 to 80%* of the fat I eat is saturated. According to standards set by the AHA, which are endorsed by the US Government, saturated fats are not healthy fats. I have been eating this way for about 8 months. I just had blood work done, and my cholesterol numbers are stellar, along with everything else.
The AHA says this:
"Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood. Be aware, too, that many foods high in saturated fats can be high in calories too...The American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves 5% to 6% of calories from saturated fat. That means, for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 13 grams of saturated fats a day."
https://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp
I know I have an awesome body, so obviously the results may vary for some people, but for a normal person, eating saturated fat is NOT unhealthy and it should not raise bad cholesterol. But the AHA virtually promises it will.
Wonder why my faith in government is diminished? I know it was a bit off topic, but it is an interesting topic in many circles.
*correction: 50-60% of my fat (which is at 70% of total macros) comes from saturated sources. That is 90-100 grams of saturated fat. According to the AHA, I should fall over and have a stroke any day now.
I'm just going to point out that the AHA is not the government.
Are they an interest group with a lobbying wing? Yes.
Are they the government? No.
Also, I think we're going to have to get the chip off our shoulders about fat and dietary cholesterol being bad for us since many recommendations are beginning to change.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
But the whole point of the argument going on now is that you are basically saying that anyone eating less than that 45-65% carb intake is low carb, right?
Personally I would label 30/40% as moderate carbs, nonetheless diets like the Zone for instance (where carbs are 40%) are often enlisted as low-carb.
I also think of the Zone or any 40-30-30 plan (which is what I typically do) as moderate carbs. In part because if I get my protein to 30% my carbs are never above 40%. I don't have to restrict them--I'd have to actively push to get them higher.
In fact, because I'm at a calorie level where 30% of calories is about 140 grams, and I really don't need protein at anywhere near that level or desire to eat more fat on average than I do (I eat plenty), and because I'm trying an eating plan that recommends more carbs around workouts, I'm actively trying to get my carbs up to 50%, and finding it difficult.
Not that anyone cares, but I think it's funny to then claim carbs at this level are "restricted." I think anything from 30-55% is probably just balanced macros. (And no better than lower carb percentages, but simply up to the preference of the individual.)
I also agree with the poster who said that the issue with the SAD has nothing to do with macros, but food selection and source. Worldwide diets vary a lot in terms of macro breakdown (traditional diets and otherwise) and the SAD is not especially notable in its macro breakdown.
0 -
Here's an article on a study that showed that there was more weight loss on a low-carb diet than a low-fat diet of the same caloric intake:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432
Cherry picking one study that is severely flawed. Read the entire study rather than just the abstract. There is more than one low variable here that is manipulated; protein. Why is protein lower in the high carb group and higher in the high fat group. And the amount is VERY significant as the high fat group got 50% more. Who doesn't understand that protein needs increase with dietary restriction? Here is the cliffs notes in case you are physiologically challenged; the high carb group got muscle cannibalism but the high fat group had it preserved (somewhat). WOW!
Also read the review studies.
Yes, the "superiority" of studies like this lie in the high protein, not the low carb.0 -
Here's an article on a study that showed that there was more weight loss on a low-carb diet than a low-fat diet of the same caloric intake:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22735432
Cherry picking one study that is severely flawed. Read the entire study rather than just the abstract. There is more than one low variable here that is manipulated; protein. Why is protein lower in the high carb group and higher in the high fat group. And the amount is VERY significant as the high fat group got 50% more. Who doesn't understand that protein needs increase with dietary restriction? Here is the cliffs notes in case you are physiologically challenged; the high carb group got muscle cannibalism but the high fat group had it preserved (somewhat). WOW!
Also read the review studies.
Yes, the "superiority" of studies like this lie in the high protein, not the low carb.
Yeah, I cannot believe that this even got published!0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"
from a SAD point of view, yes, missed that.
from http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/080113p12.shtmlLow-Carb Approach
There’s no consensus on the definition of a low-carb diet. This is why looking at the methodology of different scientific studies always is important to understand exactly what kind of low-carb diet was investigated, which can vary anywhere between 45% to less than 5% of its calories from carbs. Most researchers with experience in the field of low-carb diets usually base their studies on diets providing between 30 and 100 g of carbohydrates per day accompanied with a moderate amount of protein (15% to 30% of calories), with fats providing the rest of the daily energy requirements.
interesting..
I would have thought there would be more consensus on what low carb is...
In the low carb forums here, they acknowledge that LC means something different for everyone but welcomes anyone who wants to join. Typically under 100g total a day is considered low carb in the groups ive seen, where under 20g net is considered Keto level.
The low carb label is fairly arbitrary. But most people who profess to be low carb fall somewhere in between 5% carbs and 100g total carbs.
Thinking about this a bit more, I typically understand "low carbing" off MFP as counting carbs, not calories. It really doesn't matter what your level is, but that the focus is on how many carbs you eat, not other things. Similarly, off MFP eating "low fat" means actively watching the amount of fat you eat instead of other things (or following a diet from a doctor labeled as low fat). Ornish is in this category, for example, and some other "heart healthy" diets. Calorie based diets would be active calorie counting and also focusing on portion size/"eating healthy" and cutting out snacking (what I did to lose the time I did it pre MFP), as well as things like Jenny Craig and WW.
On MFP it gets confused because people may count calories AND follow a low carb strategy. Under these circumstances I'd consider "low carb" either focusing mainly on carbs, not calories, OR having a carb goal that puts you in keto or is significantly lower than what one would get just watching protein and calories--25% and under, maybe.
But I don't think the definition is really that significant for OP's original question, since someone who counts calories AND carbs presumably isn't claiming that CICO doesn't matter if you are low carb. The people who fall in that category are those who don't focus on calories at all AND who deny that the reason low carb works for them is that it creates a calorie deficit (by changing hunger patterns or whatever).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
But the whole point of the argument going on now is that you are basically saying that anyone eating less than that 45-65% carb intake is low carb, right?
Personally I would label 30/40% as moderate carbs, nonetheless diets like the Zone for instance (where carbs are 40%) are often enlisted as low-carb.
I also think of the Zone or any 40-30-30 plan (which is what I typically do) as moderate carbs. In part because if I get my protein to 30% my carbs are never above 40%. I don't have to restrict them--I'd have to actively push to get them higher.
In fact, because I'm at a calorie level where 30% of calories is about 140 grams, and I really don't need protein at anywhere near that level or desire to eat more fat on average than I do (I eat plenty), and because I'm trying an eating plan that recommends more carbs around workouts, I'm actively trying to get my carbs up to 50%, and finding it difficult.
Not that anyone cares, but I think it's funny to then claim carbs at this level are "restricted." I think anything from 30-55% is probably just balanced macros. (And no better than lower carb percentages, but simply up to the preference of the individual.)
I also agree with the poster who said that the issue with the SAD has nothing to do with macros, but food selection and source. Worldwide diets vary a lot in terms of macro breakdown (traditional diets and otherwise) and the SAD is not especially notable in its macro breakdown.
There's a confounding issue here that gets political, so I'll try to go into it without getting this shut down. The current recommendations in the US for diabetics are set up to require medication no matter what. Individual doctors will go against them and recommend lower carb to try and get patients off meds, but it's not what guidelines tell them to do. They are supposed to tell patients to eat at the higher end of moderate and depend on the meds to do the work. The numbers at face value don't include that condition, but it really goes hand in hand with the higher (moderate) numbers. For the sake of prescribing those meds, they'll describe 150-200 as "reducing carbs.". When people actually reduce carbs, meaning 100 range on down, many lose the meds completely.
My husband tested high at his last appt. The preprinted literature the doctor handed him followed those guidelines, eat plenty of carbs and take meds. It didn't mention the option to reduce more and not take meds. Fortunately our doctor is more interested in his health than the national guidelines.0 -
NM
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"
from a SAD point of view, yes, missed that.
from http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/080113p12.shtmlLow-Carb Approach
There’s no consensus on the definition of a low-carb diet. This is why looking at the methodology of different scientific studies always is important to understand exactly what kind of low-carb diet was investigated, which can vary anywhere between 45% to less than 5% of its calories from carbs. Most researchers with experience in the field of low-carb diets usually base their studies on diets providing between 30 and 100 g of carbohydrates per day accompanied with a moderate amount of protein (15% to 30% of calories), with fats providing the rest of the daily energy requirements.
interesting..
I would have thought there would be more consensus on what low carb is...
In the low carb forums here, they acknowledge that LC means something different for everyone but welcomes anyone who wants to join. Typically under 100g total a day is considered low carb in the groups ive seen, where under 20g net is considered Keto level.
The low carb label is fairly arbitrary. But most people who profess to be low carb fall somewhere in between 5% carbs and 100g total carbs.
Thinking about this a bit more, I typically understand "low carbing" off MFP as counting carbs, not calories. It really doesn't matter what your level is, but that the focus is on how many carbs you eat, not other things. Similarly, off MFP eating "low fat" means actively watching the amount of fat you eat instead of other things (or following a diet from a doctor labeled as low fat). Ornish is in this category, for example, and some other "heart healthy" diets. Calorie based diets would be active calorie counting and also focusing on portion size/"eating healthy" and cutting out snacking (what I did to lose the time I did it pre MFP), as well as things like Jenny Craig and WW.
On MFP it gets confused because people may count calories AND follow a low carb strategy. Under these circumstances I'd consider "low carb" either focusing mainly on carbs, not calories, OR having a carb goal that puts you in keto or is significantly lower than what one would get just watching protein and calories--25% and under, maybe.
But I don't think the definition is really that significant for OP's original question, since someone who counts calories AND carbs presumably isn't claiming that CICO doesn't matter if you are low carb. The people who fall in that category are those who don't focus on calories at all AND who deny that the reason low carb works for them is that it creates a calorie deficit (by changing hunger patterns or whatever).
Whether to count calories or not was a big discussion last week on of the LC forums here. Many can eat to full and stop, so they dont count. Not that they say CICO doesnt work but they dont have to count calories per say for eating LC to work for them. Some still count calories even if they dont need to for weight loss, but because they love data points. Others have to count to lose because they arent able to stop eating once they arent hungry or they emotional eat. All this refers to those who eat LC because it fits their lifestyle and WOE and choose to eat this way.
When it comes to health conditions, the choice is often lost and many HAVE to eat this way for their bodies to lose weight. You can see many posts here and studies linked showing the bmr is lower than 'normal' people because of a health condition and eating LC allows them to lose weight and become healthier. Most with a health condition came down on the side of counting both calories and carbs. I dont know if it has to do with the self reported higher rate of craving carbs when that is what your body has trouble processing.
I think sometimes what gets lost in the muddle of the arguement of CICO is 1) some dont understand it is a scientific equation and it works because science so they argue against it 2) medical conditions often change how your body processes different macros so there are those who didnt lose on WW even before this funny business of fruit and veggies as free but lose weight on the same calories eating LC and 3) people who start a diet, and there are TONS of them on here from LC to vegetarian/vegan to detoxes who decide to jump in with both feet and no research and then come on here and say "I decided to go (insert WOE here) this morning and I dont know what to eat" and make those who do follow the WOE correctly cringe.
So the nice part about this thread is people can better understand CICO works always, but some people need to tweak their macros to make their CO work without having to lower their CI lower than is nutritionally recommended.
So when someone comes on MFP and says I tried CICO and it didnt work but LC works then maybe we dont have to get into a huge argument over CICO but understand they meant CICO following mfp recommendations or a SAD didnt work but they tweaked their macros to change the way their bodies processed food so it did work. They mean CICO alone, without tweaking macros, didnt work not that they dont believe in CICO. They just confuse the equation CICO with 'how everyone else eats, mfp set my macros to, SAD diet, ect'.0 -
It has to do with insulin and the glycemic index peaks in insulin production tell the liver to make fat and cholesterol if you avoid the insulin peaks ie low carb and only complex carbs the liver metabolism changes to burn fat ( cholesterol ) in order to make the glucose your muscles etc need to use.christinev297 wrote: »I'm genuinely interested in the replies to this, as I have the same questions.
The replies are usually riddles that dance around the subject, but never actually state a simple yes or no answer.
I hope the smart *kitten* don't come in and derail this thread
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
3) people who start a diet, and there are TONS of them on here from LC to vegetarian/vegan to detoxes who decide to jump in with both feet and no research and then come on here and say "I decided to go (insert WOE here) this morning and I dont know what to eat" and make those who do follow the WOE correctly cringe.
And I think these are usually the people who are the target of the "you don't have to go low carb to lose" posts that seem to get some low carbers upset. I'm totally in favor of low carbing for those who enjoy it, but quite often people come in and say they are planning to low carb and their posts make it clear that they don't even have any idea what carbs are or what foods they are in. I don't think that's someone who should be encouraged to low carb without more, but someone who should be educated on what macros are, how weight loss works, and that experimenting to see what makes you satisfied (and whether eating fewer carbs helps) is one thing to do.
Similarly, when someone says something like "I'm low carb and low fat, planning to do 65% protein" or some such, the low carbers seem to be okay with explaining that's not how you do it. IMO, part of the explanation should be that low carb (like low fat) isn't necessary and there's no reason for people (without a medical condition of some kinds) to worry about carbs, which have been demonized like fat once was (and sometimes still is). So I'd again urge that part of the response to someone who seems uneducated should be to explain that it works because of CICO, whatever strategy is used.
(I also agree that people shouldn't claim that low carb never works longterm or isn't sustainable or healthy.)So when someone comes on MFP and says I tried CICO and it didnt work but LC works then maybe we dont have to get into a huge argument over CICO but understand they meant CICO following mfp recommendations or a SAD didnt work but they tweaked their macros to change the way their bodies processed food so it did work. They mean CICO alone, without tweaking macros, didnt work not that they dont believe in CICO. They just confuse the equation CICO with 'how everyone else eats, mfp set my macros to, SAD diet, ect'.
I would be happy with this, except that IME more often than not someone who announces this means to challenge CICO and to claim that eating low carb allows them to eat more than what would otherwise be their maintenance, and not merely because of a particular medical condition. (The guys who claim to eat 3000 calories low carb and not gain or the like.)
I do think starting by trying to explain what CICO means, and that it does not mean "eating SAD macros" or any particular method of tracking calories is a good start in avoiding pointless arguments based on misunderstandings--although why anyone would think it meant those things is beyond me. (It's like those who think "a calorie is a calorie" means broccoli has the same nutritional profile as marshmallow fluff. You have to actively try to misunderstand so badly.)
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
But the whole point of the argument going on now is that you are basically saying that anyone eating less than that 45-65% carb intake is low carb, right?
Personally I would label 30/40% as moderate carbs, nonetheless diets like the Zone for instance (where carbs are 40%) are often enlisted as low-carb.
I also think of the Zone or any 40-30-30 plan (which is what I typically do) as moderate carbs. In part because if I get my protein to 30% my carbs are never above 40%. I don't have to restrict them--I'd have to actively push to get them higher.
In fact, because I'm at a calorie level where 30% of calories is about 140 grams, and I really don't need protein at anywhere near that level or desire to eat more fat on average than I do (I eat plenty), and because I'm trying an eating plan that recommends more carbs around workouts, I'm actively trying to get my carbs up to 50%, and finding it difficult.
Not that anyone cares, but I think it's funny to then claim carbs at this level are "restricted." I think anything from 30-55% is probably just balanced macros. (And no better than lower carb percentages, but simply up to the preference of the individual.)
I also agree with the poster who said that the issue with the SAD has nothing to do with macros, but food selection and source. Worldwide diets vary a lot in terms of macro breakdown (traditional diets and otherwise) and the SAD is not especially notable in its macro breakdown.
There's a confounding issue here that gets political, so I'll try to go into it without getting this shut down. The current recommendations in the US for diabetics are set up to require medication no matter what. Individual doctors will go against them and recommend lower carb to try and get patients off meds, but it's not what guidelines tell them to do. They are supposed to tell patients to eat at the higher end of moderate and depend on the meds to do the work. The numbers at face value don't include that condition, but it really goes hand in hand with the higher (moderate) numbers. For the sake of prescribing those meds, they'll describe 150-200 as "reducing carbs.". When people actually reduce carbs, meaning 100 range on down, many lose the meds completely.
My husband tested high at his last appt. The preprinted literature the doctor handed him followed those guidelines, eat plenty of carbs and take meds. It didn't mention the option to reduce more and not take meds. Fortunately our doctor is more interested in his health than the national guidelines.
Sounds like something my SO would say.
Interestingly enough, my endo gave me a choice: medication or lower my carbs further. I couldn't imagine that lowering carbs any further would be possible for me..so I opted to try medication. It was a carb blocker called acarbose. It was amazing. It worked the way it was supposed to and kept my blood glucose more stable than it had been in a long time. I noticed that I was lowering my carb intake more and more every day. Whether it was because I wasn't craving carbs anymore or the warning that if I ate too many I would have issues..I don't know. I noticed once my carb intake was low enough, the medication started causing my blood glucose to drop (which is what it's supposed to do for a diabetic but not a hypoglycemic). I discontinued the medication and continued with low carb without issue. The only time I have had a hypoglycemic episode since was from drinking too much vodka at my cousins wedding..and woke up with a fasting glucose of 48. So medication helped me, to a point, but I don't need to take anything if I keep my carbs low enough.
I suppose I could take the acarbose and eat some half baked ice cream if I wanted. Haha. I'd rather not rely on medication after the first bite of every meal if I don't have to..0 -
It has to do with insulin and the glycemic index peaks in insulin production tell the liver to make fat and cholesterol if you avoid the insulin peaks ie low carb and only complex carbs the liver metabolism changes to burn fat ( cholesterol ) in order to make the glucose your muscles etc need to use.christinev297 wrote: »I'm genuinely interested in the replies to this, as I have the same questions.
The replies are usually riddles that dance around the subject, but never actually state a simple yes or no answer.
I hope the smart *kitten* don't come in and derail this thread
I don't think that's how it works0 -
People talk about how they hate that low carbers talk like their diet is superior. Some people really need to take a look in the mirror.
I haven't really discussed my diet at all...I have no label for my diet...I wouldn't know what to call it...I just eat what I eat, there's nothing superior about it. Y'all are the ones who have fancy labels and then can't actually define them.0 -
It has to do with insulin and the glycemic index peaks in insulin production tell the liver to make fat and cholesterol if you avoid the insulin peaks ie low carb and only complex carbs the liver metabolism changes to burn fat ( cholesterol ) in order to make the glucose your muscles etc need to use.christinev297 wrote: »I'm genuinely interested in the replies to this, as I have the same questions.
The replies are usually riddles that dance around the subject, but never actually state a simple yes or no answer.
I hope the smart *kitten* don't come in and derail this thread
What????
seconded0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »So I guess in conclusion, a low carb diet is completely arbitrary and meaningless.
as is a "high protein diet" or any other subjective choice of words. Always best to define ones terms.
I don't know...it seems like those folks actually have more guidelines than what you seem to be suggesting. I mean, I'm on like 45% carbs right now...guess I'm low carb...even though that's about 225 grams per day.
From here on out, I will simply dismiss low carbers as simply not knowing what they're doing or what they're talking about.
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Weren't you doing so already?
Point being, if it's completely arbitrary and meaningless as your buddy yarwell agrees that it is...then how can I actually take someone who says they're "low carb" serious...I can't take them any more seriously than I can take a "clean eater" or a person who follows paleo, but only certain parts of it and only when they want to.
Srsly...it's just hard to take most people srsly in general when they're just flinging around arbitrary and apparently meaningless labels and what not...0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »So I guess in conclusion, a low carb diet is completely arbitrary and meaningless.
as is a "high protein diet" or any other subjective choice of words. Always best to define ones terms.
I don't know...it seems like those folks actually have more guidelines than what you seem to be suggesting. I mean, I'm on like 45% carbs right now...guess I'm low carb...even though that's about 225 grams per day.
From here on out, I will simply dismiss low carbers as simply not knowing what they're doing or what they're talking about.
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Weren't you doing so already?
Point being, if it's completely arbitrary and meaningless as your buddy yarwell agrees that it is...then how can I actually take someone who says they're "low carb" serious...I can't take them any more seriously than I can take a "clean eater" or a person who follows paleo, but only certain parts of it and only when they want to.
Srsly...it's just hard to take most people srsly in general when they're just flinging around arbitrary and apparently meaningless labels and what not...
I kind of hear what you are saying. I think it is nuts to think that 20 to 200 grams of carbs would be the range for "low carb"....0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 424 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