why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?

Options
1383941434448

Replies

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    Options
    apart from my jocular "Welcome to the "low carb folks" ;-) " I don't think anyone actually said 35% was low carb did they ?
  • RockstarWilson
    RockstarWilson Posts: 836 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    Leanbean65 wrote: »

    I think nutritionally dense foods with a good mix of healthy fats, protein and complex carbs is a more realistic plan for long term weight management.

    Healthy fats, you say.....about 70 to 80%* of the fat I eat is saturated. According to standards set by the AHA, which are endorsed by the US Government, saturated fats are not healthy fats. I have been eating this way for about 8 months. I just had blood work done, and my cholesterol numbers are stellar, along with everything else.

    The AHA says this:
    "Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood. Be aware, too, that many foods high in saturated fats can be high in calories too...The American Heart Association recommends aiming for a dietary pattern that achieves 5% to 6% of calories from saturated fat. That means, for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 120 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 13 grams of saturated fats a day."
    https://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HealthyEating/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

    I know I have an awesome body, so obviously the results may vary for some people, but for a normal person, eating saturated fat is NOT unhealthy and it should not raise bad cholesterol. But the AHA virtually promises it will.

    Wonder why my faith in government is diminished? I know it was a bit off topic, but it is an interesting topic in many circles.

    *correction: 50-60% of my fat (which is at 70% of total macros) comes from saturated sources. That is 90-100 grams of saturated fat. According to the AHA, I should fall over and have a stroke any day now.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    This is a low carb site now by default?

    By default, MFP sets your macro at 50% of carbs, or such, I had to manually change mine...

  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    To be fair I've encountered a handful of low carb people on these forums and elsewhere that fully understand that it's still about energy balance. In that regard I think the thread title is a bit much.

    But yes there are certainly also a group of LCers that deny energy balance.

    The deficit part is non negotiable but that also does not mean that everyone must track those calories. If your food selection or macronutrient intake fills you up so much that you're in a deficit due to satiety then great.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    yarwell wrote: »
    I note that you restrict carbohydrate intake as well from your diary.

    Really? ah yeah, his carbs seem around 35% if I am not mistaken. That's considered "low carb" from a SAD point of view...

    ^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Options
    SideSteel wrote: »
    To be fair I've encountered a handful of low carb people on these forums and elsewhere that fully understand that it's still about energy balance. In that regard I think the thread title is a bit much.

    But yes there are certainly also a group of LCers that deny energy balance.

    The deficit part is non negotiable but that also does not mean that everyone must track those calories. If your food selection or macronutrient intake fills you up so much that you're in a deficit due to satiety then great.

    That is pretty much why people deny energy balance because they equate it with HAVING to count calories. When calorie counting is just a tool to collect data points if one so desires. But, it is not a required activity.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    I note that you restrict carbohydrate intake as well from your diary.

    Really? ah yeah, his carbs seem around 35% if I am not mistaken. That's considered "low carb" from a SAD point of view...

    ^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"

    SAD is an acronym for Standard American Diet, which, to say the truth, I don't really follow
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    I note that you restrict carbohydrate intake as well from your diary.

    Really? ah yeah, his carbs seem around 35% if I am not mistaken. That's considered "low carb" from a SAD point of view...

    ^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"

    SAD is an acronym for Standard American Diet, which, to say the truth, I don't really follow

    SAD goes way beyond a macronutrient percentage. There are populations that have much more extreme macros, especially carbs, than SAD.
    ETA: When taking about SAD with people, especially people from other countries, they never define it as a macronutrient percentage. They define it as fast food, processed food, lot of red meat, lots of grease and oil, lots of sugar etc. It looks like SAD is more about food quality and quantity than a percentage.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    I note that you restrict carbohydrate intake as well from your diary.

    Really? ah yeah, his carbs seem around 35% if I am not mistaken. That's considered "low carb" from a SAD point of view...

    ^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"

    SAD is an acronym for Standard American Diet, which, to say the truth, I don't really follow

    But the whole point of the argument going on now is that you are basically saying that anyone eating less than that 45-65% carb intake is low carb, right?

    that was my understanding..

    or have the goal posts moved?
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,963 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    I note that you restrict carbohydrate intake as well from your diary.

    Really? ah yeah, his carbs seem around 35% if I am not mistaken. That's considered "low carb" from a SAD point of view...

    ^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"

    SAD is an acronym for Standard American Diet, which, to say the truth, I don't really follow

    But the whole point of the argument going on now is that you are basically saying that anyone eating less than that 45-65% carb intake is low carb, right?

    that was my understanding..

    or have the goal posts moved?
    He admitted no, it's not low carb but went on to say that it's low per the RDA. To me that sounds more like gathered dogma to help support an opinion, which generally points to a bias.

  • yarwell
    yarwell Posts: 10,477 Member
    edited March 2015
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    I note that you restrict carbohydrate intake as well from your diary.

    Really? ah yeah, his carbs seem around 35% if I am not mistaken. That's considered "low carb" from a SAD point of view...

    ^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"

    from a SAD point of view, yes, missed that.
    Low-Carb Approach
    There’s no consensus on the definition of a low-carb diet. This is why looking at the methodology of different scientific studies always is important to understand exactly what kind of low-carb diet was investigated, which can vary anywhere between 45% to less than 5% of its calories from carbs. Most researchers with experience in the field of low-carb diets usually base their studies on diets providing between 30 and 100 g of carbohydrates per day accompanied with a moderate amount of protein (15% to 30% of calories), with fats providing the rest of the daily energy requirements.
    from http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/080113p12.shtml
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    MrM27 wrote: »

    But the whole point of the argument going on now is that you are basically saying that anyone eating less than that 45-65% carb intake is low carb, right?

    Personally I would label 30/40% as moderate carbs, nonetheless diets like the Zone for instance (where carbs are 40%) are often enlisted as low-carb.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    yarwell wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    I note that you restrict carbohydrate intake as well from your diary.

    Really? ah yeah, his carbs seem around 35% if I am not mistaken. That's considered "low carb" from a SAD point of view...

    ^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"

    from a SAD point of view, yes, missed that.
    Low-Carb Approach
    There’s no consensus on the definition of a low-carb diet. This is why looking at the methodology of different scientific studies always is important to understand exactly what kind of low-carb diet was investigated, which can vary anywhere between 45% to less than 5% of its calories from carbs. Most researchers with experience in the field of low-carb diets usually base their studies on diets providing between 30 and 100 g of carbohydrates per day accompanied with a moderate amount of protein (15% to 30% of calories), with fats providing the rest of the daily energy requirements.
    from http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/080113p12.shtml

    interesting..

    I would have thought there would be more consensus on what low carb is...
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Options
    There isn't really consensus. It's a rather vacuous term.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    SideSteel wrote: »
    There isn't really consensus. It's a rather vacuous term.

    that seems to be the case... :)
  • asdowe13
    asdowe13 Posts: 1,951 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    SideSteel wrote: »
    There isn't really consensus. It's a rather vacuous term.

    that seems to be the case... :)

    Like most dietary terms
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    yarwell wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    I note that you restrict carbohydrate intake as well from your diary.

    Really? ah yeah, his carbs seem around 35% if I am not mistaken. That's considered "low carb" from a SAD point of view...

    ^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"

    from a SAD point of view, yes, missed that.
    Low-Carb Approach
    There’s no consensus on the definition of a low-carb diet. This is why looking at the methodology of different scientific studies always is important to understand exactly what kind of low-carb diet was investigated, which can vary anywhere between 45% to less than 5% of its calories from carbs. Most researchers with experience in the field of low-carb diets usually base their studies on diets providing between 30 and 100 g of carbohydrates per day accompanied with a moderate amount of protein (15% to 30% of calories), with fats providing the rest of the daily energy requirements.
    from http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/080113p12.shtml

    Well then everyone is low carb if you look at it from the Frelee point of view.