why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
200 grams a day (35%) is restricting carbs…really???
for sure, compared to the benchmark standard dietary advice. I've seen studies of so called "low carbohydrate" diets with more than that.
Welcome to the "low carb folks" ;-)
ETA - here you go - average is 330 grams0 -
-
lol......love it. Lets all sit around the low carb fire and sing songs.
0 -
0
-
-
200 grams a day (35%) is restricting carbs…really???
for sure, compared to the benchmark standard dietary advice. I've seen studies of so called "low carbohydrate" diets with more than that.
Welcome to the "low carb folks" ;-)
ETA - here you go - average is 330 grams
Small sample size! But interesting.
0 -
-
0
-
So no. Restriction of carbs seems to make you all giggly and feel warm though, I can understand that.
0 -
well, I am cutting right now...but when I switch to maintence/bulking again the number will go up ..
I would dispute that any serious low carb person is getting 35% of their diet from carbs...0 -
That's because people still based macros on percentage lolGianfranco_R wrote: »
Wow. I guess more of us are low carb people than we thought.
Lol.......200g is somehow low carb.
0 -
ogmomma2012 wrote: »Low carb still requires calorie counting. /thread
Not necessarily. In some cases perhaps.
Many people go on low carb diets without tracking anything other than carbs and let the appetite regulation of the diet put them in a calorie deficit.0 -
Well, there is that for sure, misguided as it is, it's still the go to for most people.
That's because people still based macros on percentage lolGianfranco_R wrote: »
Wow. I guess more of us are low carb people than we thought.
Lol.......200g is somehow low carb.
0 -
I mean some people don't even bulk on 50% carbs...
and I am wary of any number that US dept of health and human services would suggest. Aren't these the same geniuses that told us to avoid dietary fat in the 80's???0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
So then we can say most of the people on this site do low carb? This is a low carb site now by default?
I guess so ...0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »I don't even know where to begin...
The process of converting protein to glucose through gluconeogensis is not thermodynamically favorable. What this means, it just takes more energy to convert specific amino acids to glucose. I see data that suggests your metabolic rate raises on a ketogenic based diet. This was done on people in a calorimeter, with a tighly controlled diet.
So you can sit there eat 2000 calories of a carb based diet with no results due to your TDEE being 2000. Switch over to a low carb diet and your metabolism can increase above 2000. You can sit there eating 2000 calories of a protein based diet and lose weight. Then you come to the conclusion, "i am eating the same as before."
Someone said something about fat and satiety. That theory was a long time ago, I would assume in the late 1990's. Fat supposedly triggers CCK(Cholecystokinin) which makes you feel fuller. But we also have to keep in mind if that's even true, fat is still double the calories.
There is also some people talking about eating a lot of fat such as in keto, the fat comes out the other end. I mean we all heard of floaters... so Idk. It's a possibility.
I'm going to focus on the bold part since I've never seen the data you suggest in the first paragraph.
I don't understand what you mean that fat is double the calories, as in what that means to low carb diets? Low carb dieters don't take the 100g of carbs they would eat otherwise and go and eat 100g of fat instead because they cut those 100g out. I guess I'm confused on what that line meant.
1g of carbs = 4 calories
1g of fat = 9 calories
I understand that. I'm just not sure what the poster meant by that line. That since a gram of fat is double the calories that is why people claim to feel more full, that there are more calories per gram? Just not sure. Either way, I think that feeling full is a big plus for people that eat LCHF.
I feel full and don't eat LCHF.....not sure why LCHFers think they are the only ones to feel full
The difference is that the low carbers who eat high fat will feel full (synonymous with not feeling hungry or weak from hunger) not for 6-8 hours, but from 8-16 hours or longer. I can eat dinner at 8pm, go to bed, wake up at 6am, have 200 calories of heavy whipping cream, and I am good til about 3 or 4 in the afternoon.
This is my eating pattern, and this is the methodology behind keto/lchf. If I have no desire to eat Anything, I have no overeating challenges. And its not an eating disorder...I eat like a slob at night.
What are you trying to say here?
I can't feel full because I don't wait 8-16 hours between meals?
No, what I mean is that I see tons of threads about how people have reached their calorie allowance by 3 or 4 pm, with 5 or 6 hours to go and come on the threads looking for advice. I dont have this issue. Most days, I dont have the opportunity to overeat. I am not saying that anyone who has carbs doesnt feel full. You said that. I am just saying that I can operate all day on just a few hundred calories of fat in the morning, whereas -most- people will have to eat something to sustain. That is all I am getting at.
But this is the same for any diet.
There are LCers who do have the opportunity to overeat. Who don't feel full.
There are plenty of non LCers who feel full.
It's not black and white.
Saying that LCers like the benefit of feeling full is NOT saying that those that eat higher carb diets don't feel full. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.
the previous poster said "LCHF feel full and that is a benefit" the implication would be that they would not feel full on a high protein diet, which is not the case….Do you even logic?
I personally wouldn't..
but I would never say that it applies to everyone else.
Maybe wording it as 'lchf keeps me satiated moreso than anything else I've tried' would have been better. Not everyone is a wordsmith.
Or maybe I give other people too much credit.
I don't understand how saying "*I* feel more full" equates to "everybody feels full eating low carb and can't possibly feel that way eating any other way". What people experience doesn't have to be the same as you experience.
It doesn't. Saying lchf feel full (if that's how it was worded) isn't the best but certainly doesn't insinuate that no one else does.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
I think that the problem with many people is that they are basically uneducated, so they should not only learn how to lose weight, but also how to eat healthily.lemurcat12 wrote: »Why overwhelm them, especially when it does not actually matter for weight loss?
How to not overwhelm them? I don't know, maybe just a link to choosemyplate.gov ?
Yes, I think that's a decent place to start. One reason I liked both the books I mentioned is that they agreed with me that nutrition really isn't as complicated as those of us interested in it like to make it. People aren't so ignorant they don't know what common sense is (eat some protein, eat some veggies, don't eat some huge percentage of your calories from cookies on a regular basis). As Fitzgerald said, the basics, which are what matter, are generally all things we knew as first graders.
IMO, getting obsessed with the small stuff (or making it all or nothing) is really because people don't want to do what they know they should--eating a balanced meal is boring, they don't like veggies, they are used to being able to eat whatever looks good in the moment. It's not really because there's a bunch of complex knowledge they don't know or secrets to learn. I think there's a view by some that there's an easier way than just eating balanced meals if they can only figure it out (the whole "hacks" thing) and by others that something so simple can't possibly work, but I think focusing on all that puts off the common sense approach--look at your diet and see how you can improve it and cut calories.
I've yet to run into someone on MFP who could not do that, if being honest with themselves. (Of course, having the knowledge to do it and being ready are different things.) But I am totally in favor of sharing links to nutrition information and what worked for us. I don't think it's helpful to tell newbies they must read studies about the benefits of 6 vs. 3 meals or breakfast or that they must cut added sugar or learn what gluten is, etc., however.
I love everything you said here so, so much.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions