why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »You're seriously asking that? People need calories to maintain basic functioning
like the 250,000 hanging round their belly for example.
I wasn't specifically referring to minimum intake, which should be about nutrition and not energy, but the general "you aren't eating enough to lose weight" opinion that comes out when someone eating say 1400 calories and exercising says they don't lose weight.
It's like a deficit of 500 is good, 1000 might be OK, but 1100 and you lose no weight.
Oh, hell no, no one who's been around long ever says that, though. That's always roundly refuted by anyone who knows what they're talking about.
Yes, all the fat people are going to get fatter because they're eating too little fallacy. Drives me batty.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »You're seriously asking that? People need calories to maintain basic functioning
like the 250,000 hanging round their belly for example.
I wasn't specifically referring to minimum intake, which should be about nutrition and not energy, but the general "you aren't eating enough to lose weight" opinion that comes out when someone eating say 1400 calories and exercising says they don't lose weight.
It's like a deficit of 500 is good, 1000 might be OK, but 1100 and you lose no weight.
Who claims that?0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »No, what I mean is that I see tons of threads about how people have reached their calorie allowance by 3 or 4 pm, with 5 or 6 hours to go and come on the threads looking for advice. I dont have this issue.
I don't either. I don't think it's necessarily about low carb vs. not. I do think that some people find diets difficult because they struggle with hunger and find that changing to lower carbs fixes that.0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
What are you trying to say here?
I can't feel full because I don't wait 8-16 hours between meals?
No, what I mean is that I see tons of threads about how people have reached their calorie allowance by 3 or 4 pm, with 5 or 6 hours to go and come on the threads looking for advice. I dont have this issue. Most days, I dont have the opportunity to overeat. I am not saying that anyone who has carbs doesnt feel full. You said that. I am just saying that I can operate all day on just a few hundred calories of fat in the morning, whereas -most- people will have to eat something to sustain. That is all I am getting at.
On that point..i still have 500 calories left to get to 1200..and that's not counting the hour of exercise I have to do yet..which will give me about 300 more. Some days I have trouble eating enough. I never had that problem until lchf. Not saying other people don't. Just saying I personally never came across that issue eating any other way.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Who claims that?
it's a regular occurrence, possibly not from old hands. There's even a group called "eat more to lose weight" after all which appears in the popular groups thing on the home page.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »nicsflyingcircus wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »
Would I be able to eat a serving at night of Ben & Jerry's Half Baked ice cream?blktngldhrt wrote: »
This was my other thought. I follow the reddit/keto boards and I always read that anything under 50 g of carbs as long as it fits is fine. I mean unless it interferes with your goals. Or if you are lower in carbs. Idk this low carb stuff is giving me a headache, but I have no gastric issues right now so I shall stick with it. Ugh.blktngldhrt wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
I've also dumped cereal because the amount I need to eat for breakfast is 2.5 times the serving suggested on the box. My breakfast "diet food" is one egg, a strip of bacon, and some grilled onions.
I could care less about balanced macros. My grandparents lived past 90 at the right weight without knowing their balanced macros. But they ate good food, and had no junk in the house.
PS - I get most of my carbs from fruit and vegetables.
What are your ratios if you eat fruit then? Fruit has sugar?
The sugar I'm getting from fruit is a lot less than the sugar I was getting from cookies and ice cream.
It's entirely possible to control the amount of cookies and ice cream you eat without being LCHF. In fact, amusingly enough, the majority of calories in both are probably from fat, so HCLF people probably aren't eating lots of either.
There's a lot less sugar in potatoes or oatmeal or whole wheat pasta, to pick three major sources of carbs I've had this week, than in fruit (which I've also had, also ice cream, for full disclosure, which I easily can eat a serving of). So not really sure why you are making the discussion about "sugar."
You also didn't answer the question Mel asked.
OK. How about the calories I am getting from fruit is a lot less than the calories I used to get from cookies, cake, chips, pretzels, ice cream and other junk (which I still eat by the way, but at a reduction of about 90% from my previous levels).
I'm sure that's true, but I don't see what it has to do with the discussion or with your claim that LCHF works better than other ways to diet (lots of books on amazon, no books on HCLF, people in general just eat less on LCHF, etc.).
That's my confusion Onlythetruth. You talk about low carbs and about all these LCHF books, but you eat fruit and still eat ice cream, cake, etc. I don't really see that as LCHF...probably eating a balanced diet (the sense of what people eat). Even if you cut down, I just wonder how much you cut if you consider yourself low carb.
You can't eat fruit on low carb? There are also low carb ice cream and baked goods recipes.
too many rules...
Rules? Keep your macros at 5% net carb 20% protein and 75% fat..give or take a few percent for each (whatever works best)..drink enough fluids and keep your sodium up. Done.
How much cardio you wanna do? Anything is possible. The question is if it's worth it.
This doesn't even make sense...
Why?
Because he asked if he could have half baked ice cream..which is 32g of net carbs. In order to fit it into the keto macros he would need to have a large number of calories to work with in order to get the desired amount of ice cream and stay within the 5%. Exercise increases the number of calories one can eat..this increasing the number
of carbs.
For example, I ate 1824 calories last Thursday and my carbs were 30g net or 9%. I would have easily been able to skip the beer and jerky and have a half serving of the ice cream that day. Some people can be in ketosis at 9% carb. I, personally like 4-5% better for my blood glucose.
Because in my crazy world of just eating a well balanced and nutritious diet, I don't need to do *kitten* loads of cardio just to have a little ice cream for desert. But hey...I live in crazy land over here....
Everything you're talking about sounds like cruel and unusual punishment...I get why you do it...you have a pretty legit reason medically...I don't see how this would be appealing at all to anyone who didn't need to do it.
I have to say- I completely agree with @cwolfman13 , I do it because like you said to her- I have a legit medical reason for doing it- but can't see how it would be appealing to someone without a medical reason
It's appealing to me because I feel more satiated on the same calories doing LCHF than I did doing solely calorie counting with more "balanced" macros. Plus, I prefer salt/savory/meaty to sweet and starchy, so it works -for me-. I am not a high performance athlete, though I am making efforts on the "move more" part of the deal.
I do not preach about it, nor in fact truly discuss it much outside the keto boards because it always turns into "eat what you want and make it fit" and what people don't seem to get is that is what I am doing. I just don't happen to care to make bread/pasta/potatoes/sweets/etc... fit... right now.
*Disclaimer: I lost 80lbs straight calorie counting before switching to LCHF and another 60 since then. In both cases I am counting calories, I just feel better/fuller/happier what have you, in the second case*
Cool- thanks. I genuinely was interested and really couldn't understand why someone would do it without a medical issue- but your explanation makes sense. I think I may follow your rule about not discussing it outside the PCOS or low carber boards cause you are right.....
For what it's worth, nic's reasoning makes total sense to me and I never get why people have such trouble understanding why LCHF might appeal to someone. I cut my carbs down to about 100 (not terribly low, but I don't know what that is in net) when I was on low calories (1250), because when I prioritize food meat and cheese and savory stuff make it and most starchy and sweet stuff does not. This also means that I probably could gain weight on LCHF if I did it and didn't count calories and that I have pretty good self control with carbs, so is also why when I have more calories I end up happily eating more carbs without it screwing up my hunger or cravings or anything, maybe. But if someone says they'd rather be able to feel like they are eating whatever they want and can do that with low carb, I get it. If you made me choose between low carb and low fat I'd do low carb with no thought. I spent my childhood irritating my mother because I refused to eat sandwiches or cereal, after all. ;-) But lucky for me (since I do like potatoes and ice cream, and even some bread these days), I can do balanced macros or just play around with different ratios.
THIS!!! A Million times this!!! I'd rather eat the savory stuff than the sweet Mind you I'd rather eat all the food, but if I have to figure something out, I'd lose the bread.
And I am the opposite- I don't necessarily do a lot of sweet stuff but if I had the choice- I could easily go without meat and fat (except bacon, bacon is always the exception ) in exchange of a nice warm roll with butter or a baked potato with sour cream and butter, or a fresh baked something 0 -
RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.0 -
I am not a "low carb" diet the way many mean it here but when I was dx with t2 diabetes in December, my nutritionist set me some guidelines. 150 g carbs a day. She said if I stayed at that then my calories would be low enough to have a deficit to promote weight loss. With MFP I am tracking both and she was correct. And I have lost weight...win win.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
I think it maybe is just the first ones to pop into their heads that they "cant" have cause maybe it doesn't fit into their macros or at least not a serving size would.
For me it is bread- do I want bread - heck yeah- like French bread- a slice of French bread would fit into my calories macros but would take 1/3 of my carbs-- so I have to analyze is that one slice worth it for me or do I want to "spend" it on something else? or a baked potato which has 37 carbs- would not fit at all- I could have a bite- but then how do I weigh that to log it? Even half a potato would be half my carbs for the day--- no thanks,
so maybe for the low carbers you have seen its candy, ice cream, and pop tarts that pop into their head first when thinking about carbs.....
Just a thought
ETA- I mean who wants to list EVERY source of carbs just cause they are talking about them and eating or not eating them?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
Good point. I did not see that pattern of explanation. I will elaborate.
In order for me to feel full on a meal with carbs, such as stirfry with rice, pasta, potatoes, soups, cereal and what have you, I have to have a lot of food. I consider how long it will last me before I need to eat again. That time frame is a lot shorter than when 70% of my macros are fat. If I feel hungry a few hours later, and ignore it, I can get shaky because my body wants more food (when carbs are unrestricted, or at 35+% of macros). I do not have these effects on lchf. I can ignore hunger for hours, as my body no longer relies on mealtimes so much, but can thrive on what is stored in my body. Carbs such as fruit and veggies just satiate me for a few minutes.
My apologies. By saying that I have no control with cake and chips, I was implying that they never fill me up and I have no self control when I am metabolically using carbs/glucose for primary energy. Pasta and other foods that have carbs will fill me up, but I have to have a lot of em. Calorie light foods never do that, unless paired with something, like butter.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
the ones I read usually talk about "grams of carbohydrate" ie the macro not the food.
Arguments about chips, cake, ice cream and the like are usually prompted by the "any crap within your calories" type of poster ie "you don't need to do low carb just eat what you want as long as it's in a deficit"
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Onlythetruth wrote: »The high-fat, low-carb and low-refined sugar way of eating has left the station. Time to get on board!
There's a reason why you can find a couple of dozen LCHF diet books on Amazon, and no HCLF diet books. LCHF works. Why? Because with for me and millions, you just eat fewer calories with LCHF. It's that simple.
And before you get into a tizzy, I'm not saying no carbs and no sugar. I'm saying low carbs and low sugar. There is always a time to eat that piece of cheesecake.
You can find any kind of diet book on amazon. No one here is recommending a HCLF diet (I'd hate it), but there are people on MFP all about the raw 80-10-10 stuff, and plenty of diet books for plenty of different kinds of diets that are HCLF.
I don't at all disagree that LCHF works, but this is the kind of post that we've been responding to that Mel seems to want to dismiss (I would to if I were her, since she seems extremely sensible and to have a good understanding of how different diets work for different people). The point I and others are making is that LCHF is not the best diet ever and doesn't work for EVERYONE. It would not work for me, whereas balanced macros do (balance depending on what my TDEE is and how much activity I'm doing). You may eat fewer calories doing LCHF (if only because you are using that to cut out trigger foods that for you happen to be processed carbs), but that's not so for everyone, and if you are doing it to cut out foods that tempt you (as opposed to dealing with satiety issues) I'm frankly skeptical about whether there's any benefit long term.
Long term, not having big bags of chips and cookies and pretzels, and half-gallon containers of ice cream in my house, have worked out very well for me long-term. Yes, I admit it - I lack willpower. And so do most people.
And again, this has NOTHING to do with being low carb. You don't need to be low carb to get rid of trigger foods in the house, and I'm many could come up with trigger foods that aren't carb based to keep in the house or not.
Logic fail. If A=B does not imply B=A.
If someone's trigger foods are primarily carb-heavy, then yes, LC may well be the "right" answer.
Exactly. I suck with carbs. If I have chips, I have half the bag. If I have cake, I need ice cream as well. It is a trade off, though, because instead of chips and cake, I can indulge in half a pound of bacon each day I want.
"Feeling full" is subjective. I consider "feeling full" to be "not feeling hungry," or "not in need of food to function."
How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
If you have some beans do you feel the need to consume the whole batch? If you have some oats do you feel compelled to just keep eating oats until the cows come home? Does having a baked sweet potato with dinner send you back to the oven to make more?
I mean, I don't do great with things like chips either...but I can have my sweet potato and I'm just fine having one.
This goes back to one of my first posts in this thread...it seems like the implication from the low carb crowd is that if you eat carbs you must be eating like *kitten*.... and eating nothing besides twinkies, poptarts, and ice cream. It's annoying.
I think it maybe is just the first ones to pop into their heads that they "cant" have cause maybe it doesn't fit into their macros or at least not a serving size would.
For me it is bread- do I want bread - heck yeah- like French bread- a slice of French bread would fit into my calories macros but would take 1/3 of my carbs-- so I have to analyze is that one slice worth it for me or do I want to "spend" it on something else? or a baked potato which has 37 carbs- would not fit at all- I could have a bite- but then how do I weigh that to log it? Even half a potato would be half my carbs for the day--- no thanks,
so maybe for the low carbers you have seen its candy, ice cream, and pop tarts that pop into their head first when thinking about carbs.....
Just a thought
ETA- I mean who wants to list EVERY source of carbs just cause they are talking about them and eating or not eating them?
Perhaps, but really, I'm more inclined to think people are so immersed in the low carb craze and the demonization of carbohydrates that they actually either forget or have no clue that there are many incredibly nutritious foods that are loaded with carbs...
I mean, I usually have a little something "treaty" for desert every night...but by and large, my carbohydrate intake consists of oats, legumes, sweet potatoes and potatoes, brown rice, fruit, and veg, etc.0 -
if i dont get at least 200 carbs a day... im good for nothing! My muscles NEED them... and i LOVE them! 40% carbs 40 % protein 20% fat is my split. It works for me.. i am a personal trainer and in my off time.. i am a runner and i lift.0
-
I personally do low carb because I love to eat, and I don't blow my calories when I eat low carb. I also find that going low carb during serious hormone changes allows me to lose instead of maintaining. I am by no means Keto, I think I'm more "normal range" than anything. It's not calories in and calories out because I'd rather a huge plate of zuccini noodles then a teeny tiny cup of pasta.
why is it a "tiny cup" of pasta. A serving is two ounces which equals 200 calories. The other night I had pan roasted grouper over two servings of linguine and I had no problem fitting it into my calorie goal for the day ...
why is not calories in vs calories out? If you subed zucchini noodles (which are not real noodles) for pasta then you took a high calorie food and replaced it with a low calorie food...
Where on god's green earth do you get that low calorie pasta? 1 cup of no name bow tie pasta is 248 calories, but 1 cup of zuccini is 18 calories. I didn't disagree with the CICO concept, but I choose to cut my calorie intake in carbs, so I can stuff my face with the amazing white mushroom sauce I make with my high protein and zuccini "noodles" and feel more satisfied than if I get a wee cup of bowtie noodles.
Davinci Linguine - 2oz serving = 200 calories0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
the ones I read usually talk about "grams of carbohydrate" ie the macro not the food.
Arguments about chips, cake, ice cream and the like are usually prompted by the "any crap within your calories" type of poster ie "you don't need to do low carb just eat what you want as long as it's in a deficit"
Sorry but that's false. You can't say that group is usually the ones responsible for the topic coming up. Plenty of times we see someone state it in the OP from the beginning or by someone arguing against someone that talks about macros. They bring up the chips, donuts and ice cream nonsense as if that is all we eat.
^^This. And if you bothered to read properly there is always the caveat of also meeting your targets in terms of macros and micros. Srsly, I have yet to see anyone suggest people just blindly eat what they want without paying attention to nutritional needs.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »How come when low carbers talk about carbs they always talk about chips and cake and candy and whatnot? Those are carbs...but there's all kinds of other carbs too...
the ones I read usually talk about "grams of carbohydrate" ie the macro not the food.
Arguments about chips, cake, ice cream and the like are usually prompted by the "any crap within your calories" type of poster ie "you don't need to do low carb just eat what you want as long as it's in a deficit"
and there is the straw man argument...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions