why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Replies
-
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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
I think you are missing the point. If low carb is anywhere from 20 to 200 grams a day then you can pretty much fit anyone into that, then low carb is just some arbitrary thing that anyone can "do"....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...
Just making a joke since you seem to find the need to group anyone who eats a generally low amount of carbs together as one single person (or think that people who eat a low amount of carbs are somehow all friends)..and dismiss them as idiots not to be taken seriously (or srsly). Something you were doing long before your claim to start doing so.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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
I think you are missing the point. If low carb is anywhere from 20 to 200 grams a day then you can pretty much fit anyone into that, then low carb is just some arbitrary thing that anyone can "do"....
See my previous post about the ADA guidelines vs reality. One person listed 200 as low carb, mostly as a joke from the looks of it, based entirely on your macro percentage (think it was you? Might have been someone else?) That's hardly a realistic occurrence, just a numerical fluke. OTOH, you could look at it from the standpoint that someone who is supermorbidly obsese, like the 600+ range, could have the same calorie range and macro percentage as you have and technically, it would count as lc. For someone who was eating 3 value meals a day plus 6 bags of Doritos, it's a carb reduction, but the implication is as their weight drops, the calories drop, and with that, the carbs.
To put it bluntly, if you went to a Medicaid clinic and tested as T2, they would assign you to eat 150-200 carbs a day and take your metaformin. If you went to a doctor who is free to practice as they wish, they would most likely give you a choice, eat 150-200 and take metaformin, or try to eat less than that and see if you can get the numbers down enough to stop taking meds. That first situation is why you'll find references online stating 200 is "low," but it's not what you see in practice.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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
I know tons of people on the low carb band wagon...not a single one of them has been prescribed a low carb diet from a health provider...they have been prescribed a low carb diet from whatever fitness magazine they happen to read because it's all the rage...they generally have no understanding of pretty much anything as it relates to actual nutrtion...they're all just little lemmings echoing the "carbs are bad" mantra...of course they will only do this until the next thing becomes hip and whatnot.
I think you are greatly exaggerating the number of people who are actually prescribed a low carb diet due to legitimate health conditions...and, most who do, actually do post that...and also, I'm not just talking MFP here...MFP is nothing...MFP is tiny compared to the real world.
But beyond that, now I'm totally confused as to what constitutes low carb...I mean apparently to some of you, I would be "low carb" given the % of carbs I usually eat.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
False
If your sample is taken from gym rats, your numbers are going to be skewed. If you take into account the larger lc community, the majority are people you will probably never interact with, unless you're in the habit of hanging out on PCOS forums or diabetic support groups. Exactly what percentage of your sample is peri or post-menopause, for starters?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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
I think you are missing the point. If low carb is anywhere from 20 to 200 grams a day then you can pretty much fit anyone into that, then low carb is just some arbitrary thing that anyone can "do"....
What's considered high protein? High fat? Moderate protein? Low fat?
The label is helpful in finding specific things about whatever way of eating someone chooses (or has) to follow. What word is a person supposed to use to get the attention of someone who eats similarly or to find recipes or research?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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
do you have a source/stat on that?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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
I think you are missing the point. If low carb is anywhere from 20 to 200 grams a day then you can pretty much fit anyone into that, then low carb is just some arbitrary thing that anyone can "do"....
See my previous post about the ADA guidelines vs reality. One person listed 200 as low carb, mostly as a joke from the looks of it, based entirely on your macro percentage (think it was you? Might have been someone else?) That's hardly a realistic occurrence, just a numerical fluke. OTOH, you could look at it from the standpoint that someone who is supermorbidly obsese, like the 600+ range, could have the same calorie range and macro percentage as you have and technically, it would count as lc. For someone who was eating 3 value meals a day plus 6 bags of Doritos, it's a carb reduction, but the implication is as their weight drops, the calories drop, and with that, the carbs.
To put it bluntly, if you went to a Medicaid clinic and tested as T2, they would assign you to eat 150-200 carbs a day and take your metaformin. If you went to a doctor who is free to practice as they wish, they would most likely give you a choice, eat 150-200 and take metaformin, or try to eat less than that and see if you can get the numbers down enough to stop taking meds. That first situation is why you'll find references online stating 200 is "low," but it's not what you see in practice.
So a reduction in carbs = low carb.....
I mean I would generally agree that anyone eating the SAD could probably stand to reduce carbs...particularly 40 ounce Big Gulps and what not...but I've never equated reducing carbohydrates in an effort to balance out one's diet to be "low carb." Now we're getting somewhere.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
I think you are missing the point. If low carb is anywhere from 20 to 200 grams a day then you can pretty much fit anyone into that, then low carb is just some arbitrary thing that anyone can "do"....
What's considered high protein? High fat? Moderate protein? Low fat?
The label is helpful in finding specific things about whatever way of eating someone chooses (or has) to follow. What word is a person supposed to use to get the attention of someone who eats similarly or to find recipes or research?
I don't know because I don't deal with "labels"
Right now I am cutting so I go with 35% protein/35% carbs/30% fats...some days I lower my carbs down to keep my deficit in check ...when I go to maintenance/gaining again, I will up carbs to 40% and drop protein to 30%....
I also pay attention to grams, and make sure I am hitting my minimums..
IMO life is easier when you don't have to fit yourself into boxed label..
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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
do you have a source/stat on that?
You mean aside from the general population breakdown of every website out there? Of course nobody has done a study on it. Do you honestly think 3 week fly by dieters outnumber the sheer number of people in the world who have diabetes, IR, PCOS, inflammation issues, GERD, and any of the other conditions medically treated with low carb? Maybe in January, for a week.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
I think you are missing the point. If low carb is anywhere from 20 to 200 grams a day then you can pretty much fit anyone into that, then low carb is just some arbitrary thing that anyone can "do"....
What's considered high protein? High fat? Moderate protein? Low fat?
The label is helpful in finding specific things about whatever way of eating someone chooses (or has) to follow. What word is a person supposed to use to get the attention of someone who eats similarly or to find recipes or research?
I don't know because I don't deal with "labels"
Right now I am cutting so I go with 35% protein/35% carbs/30% fats...some days I lower my carbs down to keep my deficit in check ...when I go to maintenance/gaining again, I will up carbs to 40% and drop protein to 30%....
I also pay attention to grams, and make sure I am hitting my minimums..
IMO life is easier when you don't have to fit yourself into boxed label..
It's definitely easier if you don't have to.. I'm not debating that.
I didn't know about keto until I dropped my carbs so low that I thought I should probably do some research on how that would affect me.
It was helpful for me to type 'low carb' into proquest for some research on the subject..as I only had the fact that my carbs were lower than normal to go on.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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
do you have a source/stat on that?
You mean aside from the general population breakdown of every website out there? Of course nobody has done a study on it. Do you honestly think 3 week fly by dieters outnumber the sheer number of people in the world who have diabetes, IR, PCOS, inflammation issues, GERD, and any of the other conditions medically treated with low carb? Maybe in January, for a week.
Epilepsy is another one.
I think almost half of the people who say they're low carb in this thread have a medical condition.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
do you have a source/stat on that?
You mean aside from the general population breakdown of every website out there? Of course nobody has done a study on it. Do you honestly think 3 week fly by dieters outnumber the sheer number of people in the world who have diabetes, IR, PCOS, inflammation issues, GERD, and any of the other conditions medically treated with low carb? Maybe in January, for a week.
Epilepsy is another one.
I think almost half of the people who say they're low carb in this thread have a medical condition.
And IBS. I think the three busiest threads in the LC group these days are Diabetes/IR, IBS/Crohns, and women over 50. The only one that really rivals it is the one with everyone explaining why they still count calories on LC.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 fallacies
So you are not aware of how metabolic sydrome and insulin resistance can be developed (over a long period of time)?
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....
I pointed it out quite extensively in my original post.
I even said: "I am one of those people who is very sensitive to sugars and carbs. My entire family is .. genetically. With any of us, if you put us on low carb, great things happen. On "normal" diets (pasta, whole wheat bread), we do not fare as well. We are all prone to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome."
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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
do you have a source/stat on that?
You mean aside from the general population breakdown of every website out there? Of course nobody has done a study on it. Do you honestly think 3 week fly by dieters outnumber the sheer number of people in the world who have diabetes, IR, PCOS, inflammation issues, GERD, and any of the other conditions medically treated with low carb? Maybe in January, for a week.
I am honestly curious if there is a stat/source/study on that...
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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
False
If your sample is taken from gym rats, your numbers are going to be skewed. If you take into account the larger lc community, the majority are people you will probably never interact with, unless you're in the habit of hanging out on PCOS forums or diabetic support groups. Exactly what percentage of your sample is peri or post-menopause, for starters?
I know lots of people who are or have been "low carb" and none of them were prescribed it by their doctor. They just read Atkins or heard that low carbing makes losing weight easier. When I started losing weight about 100 people asked me what I was doing and the first thing they guessed was low carbing. It's trendy. No, it was trendy in the early '00s, now it's assumed to be an easy way to lose weight.
The gym people I know aren't so likely to low carb because a lot of them do endurance sports (they typically eat lots of carbs) or are into carb cycling or paleo. (This is biased because I do some CrossFit, and now everyone can mock me, yay.)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....
I pointed it out quite extensively in my original post.
I even said: "I am one of those people who is very sensitive to sugars and carbs. My entire family is .. genetically. With any of us, if you put us on low carb, great things happen. On "normal" diets (pasta, whole wheat bread), we do not fare as well. We are all prone to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome."
sorry, I missed that.
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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
False
If your sample is taken from gym rats, your numbers are going to be skewed. If you take into account the larger lc community, the majority are people you will probably never interact with, unless you're in the habit of hanging out on PCOS forums or diabetic support groups. Exactly what percentage of your sample is peri or post-menopause, for starters?
Gym rats?
You specifically said the majority of lc people have prescribed it by a medical professional. You're making an assumption because you don't actually have figures to back that up.
As you are making an assumption that it's not. However, I'm also going with the idea that I have a much larger sample size than you, since I've been actively participating in online and real life support groups and forums for over 10 years, while you're basing your assumption on people you've met who talk about their diet and people who post in the general info area of MFP. As I asked, what percentage of your sample size is post menopausal women? How about men over 50 with a T2 diagnosis? Women of all ages with PCOS and IR? People over 40 with GERD or IBS? In the places I'm associating with people on low carb, I'll find a lot of those, and a handful of people using it only for non-medical reasons. If those people aren't even included in your view of what constitutes the "lc community" you can't really make an estimate of how many have a prescribed WOE.0 -
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 fallacies
So you are not aware of how metabolic sydrome and insulin resistance can be developed (over a long period of time)?
Yes, and it is not carbohydates like you implied. There are populations of people who eat almost nothing but carbs and have no traces of any diabetes, cvd, or obesity.0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
I love carbs but they dont love me....So I cut calories and carbs, I have been losing continuoulsy for almost a year doing this, Do i think it only works if I do either one? I have no idea because I have been doing both. I am at 103.2 pounds lost I am very healthy and becoming more fit everyday, building muscle and everything...so I dont care who is right or wrong on this topic, I just do what works for me and it is sustainable because I am right at a year in this. ALso I do have occasional cheat meals, I think it helps in the long term...jmo0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
False
If your sample is taken from gym rats, your numbers are going to be skewed. If you take into account the larger lc community, the majority are people you will probably never interact with, unless you're in the habit of hanging out on PCOS forums or diabetic support groups. Exactly what percentage of your sample is peri or post-menopause, for starters?
I know lots of people who are or have been "low carb" and none of them were prescribed it by their doctor. They just read Atkins or heard that low carbing makes losing weight easier. When I started losing weight about 100 people asked me what I was doing and the first thing they guessed was low carbing. It's trendy. No, it was trendy in the early '00s, now it's assumed to be an easy way to lose weight.
The gym people I know aren't so likely to low carb because a lot of them do endurance sports (they typically eat lots of carbs) or are into carb cycling or paleo. (This is biased because I do some CrossFit, and now everyone can mock me, yay.)
I totally agree with this, and... after reading through this thread I have observed a couple of things.
1. OP started the thread to get more insight into the type of LC individual who doesn't believe in CICO, who believes that eating LC voids the science of CICO and can lose weight regardless of how many calories they consume, just because of low carb.
2. Most of the LC people who responded to this thread did so very neutrally, saying that no, they believe in CICO, that losing weight ultimately comes down to a calorie defcit, and LC is just a means to achieve that calorie deficit. Many of those same people have said that they started LC because of medical reasons and under doctor guidance. It seems to me that the people who have medical reasons, or are doing LC under doctor prescription - have more concrete guidelines/targets as far as specific number range of carbs to stay within.
3. A couple of LC folks seemed to think OP was picking a fight, when in actuality I think this has been a very neutral discussion with both sides making, and accepting, each other's logical points.
4. I think we were starting to come to consensus that the people who were the object of the OP's original question are likely new to the LC lifestyle and how it really works.
Doesn't it also stand to reason that the ones coming here making the wild claims that LC invalidates the CICO principles, who may be new to the LC approach, are NOT doing this under doctor supervision, they are doing it because someone told someone who told someone that eating LC makes you feel fuller, you don't have to worry about how many calories you eat, that the weight just falls off of you, yadayadayada.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
False
If your sample is taken from gym rats, your numbers are going to be skewed. If you take into account the larger lc community, the majority are people you will probably never interact with, unless you're in the habit of hanging out on PCOS forums or diabetic support groups. Exactly what percentage of your sample is peri or post-menopause, for starters?
I know lots of people who are or have been "low carb" and none of them were prescribed it by their doctor. They just read Atkins or heard that low carbing makes losing weight easier. When I started losing weight about 100 people asked me what I was doing and the first thing they guessed was low carbing. It's trendy. No, it was trendy in the early '00s, now it's assumed to be an easy way to lose weight.
The gym people I know aren't so likely to low carb because a lot of them do endurance sports (they typically eat lots of carbs) or are into carb cycling or paleo. (This is biased because I do some CrossFit, and now everyone can mock me, yay.)
I totally agree with this, and... after reading through this thread I have observed a couple of things.
1. OP started the thread to get more insight into the type of LC individual who doesn't believe in CICO, who believes that eating LC voids the science of CICO and can lose weight regardless of how many calories they consume, just because of low carb.
2. Most of the LC people who responded to this thread did so very neutrally, saying that no, they believe in CICO, that losing weight ultimately comes down to a calorie defcit, and LC is just a means to achieve that calorie deficit. Many of those same people have said that they started LC because of medical reasons and under doctor guidance. It seems to me that the people who have medical reasons, or are doing LC under doctor prescription - have more concrete guidelines/targets as far as specific number range of carbs to stay within.
3. A couple of LC folks seemed to think OP was picking a fight, when in actuality I think this has been a very neutral discussion with both sides making, and accepting, each other's logical points.
4. I think we were starting to come to consensus that the people who were the object of the OP's original question are likely new to the LC lifestyle and how it really works.
Doesn't it also stand to reason that the ones coming here making the wild claims that LC invalidates the CICO principles, who may be new to the LC approach, are NOT doing this under doctor supervision, they are doing it because someone told someone who told someone that eating LC makes you feel fuller, you don't have to worry about how many calories you eat, that the weight just falls off of you, yadayadayada.
I will go ahead and cosign this ....0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »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...
Because in the majority of cases, whether they feel it's any of your business or not, it's someone with a medical degree and/or someone with a nutrition science degree who prescribed it to them. Whether or not the poster fully understands the science behind it is irrelevant to them wanting recipe info, or wanting to find other people using the same WOE, or wondering if anyone else has experienced XYZ.
Unless you're suggesting you can psychically diagnose people through a message board more accurately than their own doctors?
I know tons of people on the low carb band wagon...not a single one of them has been prescribed a low carb diet from a health provider...they have been prescribed a low carb diet from whatever fitness magazine they happen to read because it's all the rage...they generally have no understanding of pretty much anything as it relates to actual nutrtion...they're all just little lemmings echoing the "carbs are bad" mantra...of course they will only do this until the next thing becomes hip and whatnot.
I think you are greatly exaggerating the number of people who are actually prescribed a low carb diet due to legitimate health conditions...and, most who do, actually do post that...and also, I'm not just talking MFP here...MFP is nothing...MFP is tiny compared to the real world.
But beyond that, now I'm totally confused as to what constitutes low carb...I mean apparently to some of you, I would be "low carb" given the % of carbs I usually eat.
A LCHF perspective:
Worth mentioning that a VLC/HF diet, also known as a ketogenic diet, has been used since the 1920s to help with a variety of ailments, such as epileptic seizures, thyroid conditions, sleep issues, and diabetes, to name a few. I don't know what they say in the checkout newsstand magazines, because I just look at the hot women with cleavage on the title pages and scoff at the title that lists 348,671 ways to do _______. Do you know what happened in the early 1900s that make the low carb diet go to the curb? Pharmaceuticals. Chemistry revelations were happening all over the place in that time, and that helped the pharmaceutical industry. Why follow a rigorous diet and exercise when you could just take a pill to fix whats wrong? So, a TRUE low carb diet, which the ketogenic diet is, is most definitely not a fad. It has historical significance. I didn't start this diet because it was "cool." I started it because I was overeating, I didn't have much time to prepare meals for the day, and I was getting the farts like crazy. Something had to change.
If you knew me, you would know I don't give two shites about pop culture and the like. It annoys me. Considering I go to college now, I don't have many friends because of this. I just go with what is functional and cost-effective. Right now, the keto diet is functional and cost effective, as I am eating less. Per calorie, and in my estimations, a ketogenic diet is cheaper than the alternatives. It is pretty nice to only have to eat once or twice a day. I don't have to plan my day around food, or plan my meals. If I skip lunch...okay, I skipped lunch, whatever. I just continue with my day. I kind of like that. It has nothing to do with a fad, because again...I don't care about fads. If it enhances my life and allows me to progress towards my goals, I will give it a shot. So, here I am. I have seen a multitude of results on this diet, but I educated myself a little bit before I did it and then I just jumped right in. I didn't even know what a ketone was before September of last year.
I generally don't have a definition for what low carb actually is. It is a subjective and relative term, such as low air pressure or high temperatures. 200 carbs is about 800 calories, and 800 calories to a petite woman is way different than 800 calories to a morbidly obese man. I think that a definition would probably relate to percentages rather than quantities.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.)
Again tho, the arguement would be over semantics. They say CICO didnt work but what they meant was CICO on an mfp recommendation, SAD, etc didnt work and they had to tweak their macros by lowering carbs for it to work. When you have a medical condition that makes you super sensitive to carbs or the effects things get weird. So there are people who eat much more on LC than they could on the mfp recommendations or SAD or w/e and lose the weight they couldnt before, but it is because they changed the way they eat to a way their bodies can process it. And as stated before, trying to find out if you have a medical condition or trying to get a doctor to test you for certain things cant be a very long journey. Many people who find out they are IR or other metabolic syndromes, as was stated earlier, often find out AFTER they try LC and the weight 'magically' falls off when it wouldnt before at the same calorie goal. Then sometimes, and only sometimes, can you get a doctor to run the right tests and you find out you have some sort of problem with carbs.
So maybe what you or the calculator you use would be wrong about what their maintenance is? Many with medical conditions, such as PCOS especially with IR, have lower bmr than normal women with the same stats, shown by a study cited earlier in this thread. But when combined with LC, they were able to raise that bmr so their CO was more and they were able to eat more.lemurcat12 wrote: »
The gym people I know aren't so likely to low carb because a lot of them do endurance sports (they typically eat lots of carbs) or are into carb cycling or paleo. (This is biased because I do some CrossFit, and now everyone can mock me, yay.)
There are quite a few people in the LC forum who do endurance sports, like long distance running, cross country skiing, etc who dont eat carbs. You can burn carbs or you can burn fat for fuel, but carbs and endurance sports are not mutually exclusive.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions