why don't the low carb folks believe in CICO?
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
^ apparently in this posters view 35% is "low carb"
from a SAD point of view, yes, missed that.
from http://www.todaysdietitian.com/newarchives/080113p12.shtmlLow-Carb Approach
There’s no consensus on the definition of a low-carb diet. This is why looking at the methodology of different scientific studies always is important to understand exactly what kind of low-carb diet was investigated, which can vary anywhere between 45% to less than 5% of its calories from carbs. Most researchers with experience in the field of low-carb diets usually base their studies on diets providing between 30 and 100 g of carbohydrates per day accompanied with a moderate amount of protein (15% to 30% of calories), with fats providing the rest of the daily energy requirements.
interesting..
I would have thought there would be more consensus on what low carb is...
In the low carb forums here, they acknowledge that LC means something different for everyone but welcomes anyone who wants to join. Typically under 100g total a day is considered low carb in the groups ive seen, where under 20g net is considered Keto level.
The low carb label is fairly arbitrary. But most people who profess to be low carb fall somewhere in between 5% carbs and 100g total carbs.
Thinking about this a bit more, I typically understand "low carbing" off MFP as counting carbs, not calories. It really doesn't matter what your level is, but that the focus is on how many carbs you eat, not other things. Similarly, off MFP eating "low fat" means actively watching the amount of fat you eat instead of other things (or following a diet from a doctor labeled as low fat). Ornish is in this category, for example, and some other "heart healthy" diets. Calorie based diets would be active calorie counting and also focusing on portion size/"eating healthy" and cutting out snacking (what I did to lose the time I did it pre MFP), as well as things like Jenny Craig and WW.
On MFP it gets confused because people may count calories AND follow a low carb strategy. Under these circumstances I'd consider "low carb" either focusing mainly on carbs, not calories, OR having a carb goal that puts you in keto or is significantly lower than what one would get just watching protein and calories--25% and under, maybe.
But I don't think the definition is really that significant for OP's original question, since someone who counts calories AND carbs presumably isn't claiming that CICO doesn't matter if you are low carb. The people who fall in that category are those who don't focus on calories at all AND who deny that the reason low carb works for them is that it creates a calorie deficit (by changing hunger patterns or whatever).
Whether to count calories or not was a big discussion last week on of the LC forums here. Many can eat to full and stop, so they dont count. Not that they say CICO doesnt work but they dont have to count calories per say for eating LC to work for them. Some still count calories even if they dont need to for weight loss, but because they love data points. Others have to count to lose because they arent able to stop eating once they arent hungry or they emotional eat. All this refers to those who eat LC because it fits their lifestyle and WOE and choose to eat this way.
When it comes to health conditions, the choice is often lost and many HAVE to eat this way for their bodies to lose weight. You can see many posts here and studies linked showing the bmr is lower than 'normal' people because of a health condition and eating LC allows them to lose weight and become healthier. Most with a health condition came down on the side of counting both calories and carbs. I dont know if it has to do with the self reported higher rate of craving carbs when that is what your body has trouble processing.
I think sometimes what gets lost in the muddle of the arguement of CICO is 1) some dont understand it is a scientific equation and it works because science so they argue against it 2) medical conditions often change how your body processes different macros so there are those who didnt lose on WW even before this funny business of fruit and veggies as free but lose weight on the same calories eating LC and 3) people who start a diet, and there are TONS of them on here from LC to vegetarian/vegan to detoxes who decide to jump in with both feet and no research and then come on here and say "I decided to go (insert WOE here) this morning and I dont know what to eat" and make those who do follow the WOE correctly cringe.
So the nice part about this thread is people can better understand CICO works always, but some people need to tweak their macros to make their CO work without having to lower their CI lower than is nutritionally recommended.
So when someone comes on MFP and says I tried CICO and it didnt work but LC works then maybe we dont have to get into a huge argument over CICO but understand they meant CICO following mfp recommendations or a SAD didnt work but they tweaked their macros to change the way their bodies processed food so it did work. They mean CICO alone, without tweaking macros, didnt work not that they dont believe in CICO. They just confuse the equation CICO with 'how everyone else eats, mfp set my macros to, SAD diet, ect'.0 -
It has to do with insulin and the glycemic index peaks in insulin production tell the liver to make fat and cholesterol if you avoid the insulin peaks ie low carb and only complex carbs the liver metabolism changes to burn fat ( cholesterol ) in order to make the glucose your muscles etc need to use.christinev297 wrote: »I'm genuinely interested in the replies to this, as I have the same questions.
The replies are usually riddles that dance around the subject, but never actually state a simple yes or no answer.
I hope the smart *kitten* don't come in and derail this thread
0 -
3) people who start a diet, and there are TONS of them on here from LC to vegetarian/vegan to detoxes who decide to jump in with both feet and no research and then come on here and say "I decided to go (insert WOE here) this morning and I dont know what to eat" and make those who do follow the WOE correctly cringe.
And I think these are usually the people who are the target of the "you don't have to go low carb to lose" posts that seem to get some low carbers upset. I'm totally in favor of low carbing for those who enjoy it, but quite often people come in and say they are planning to low carb and their posts make it clear that they don't even have any idea what carbs are or what foods they are in. I don't think that's someone who should be encouraged to low carb without more, but someone who should be educated on what macros are, how weight loss works, and that experimenting to see what makes you satisfied (and whether eating fewer carbs helps) is one thing to do.
Similarly, when someone says something like "I'm low carb and low fat, planning to do 65% protein" or some such, the low carbers seem to be okay with explaining that's not how you do it. IMO, part of the explanation should be that low carb (like low fat) isn't necessary and there's no reason for people (without a medical condition of some kinds) to worry about carbs, which have been demonized like fat once was (and sometimes still is). So I'd again urge that part of the response to someone who seems uneducated should be to explain that it works because of CICO, whatever strategy is used.
(I also agree that people shouldn't claim that low carb never works longterm or isn't sustainable or healthy.)So when someone comes on MFP and says I tried CICO and it didnt work but LC works then maybe we dont have to get into a huge argument over CICO but understand they meant CICO following mfp recommendations or a SAD didnt work but they tweaked their macros to change the way their bodies processed food so it did work. They mean CICO alone, without tweaking macros, didnt work not that they dont believe in CICO. They just confuse the equation CICO with 'how everyone else eats, mfp set my macros to, SAD diet, ect'.
I would be happy with this, except that IME more often than not someone who announces this means to challenge CICO and to claim that eating low carb allows them to eat more than what would otherwise be their maintenance, and not merely because of a particular medical condition. (The guys who claim to eat 3000 calories low carb and not gain or the like.)
I do think starting by trying to explain what CICO means, and that it does not mean "eating SAD macros" or any particular method of tracking calories is a good start in avoiding pointless arguments based on misunderstandings--although why anyone would think it meant those things is beyond me. (It's like those who think "a calorie is a calorie" means broccoli has the same nutritional profile as marshmallow fluff. You have to actively try to misunderstand so badly.)
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »
But the whole point of the argument going on now is that you are basically saying that anyone eating less than that 45-65% carb intake is low carb, right?
Personally I would label 30/40% as moderate carbs, nonetheless diets like the Zone for instance (where carbs are 40%) are often enlisted as low-carb.
I also think of the Zone or any 40-30-30 plan (which is what I typically do) as moderate carbs. In part because if I get my protein to 30% my carbs are never above 40%. I don't have to restrict them--I'd have to actively push to get them higher.
In fact, because I'm at a calorie level where 30% of calories is about 140 grams, and I really don't need protein at anywhere near that level or desire to eat more fat on average than I do (I eat plenty), and because I'm trying an eating plan that recommends more carbs around workouts, I'm actively trying to get my carbs up to 50%, and finding it difficult.
Not that anyone cares, but I think it's funny to then claim carbs at this level are "restricted." I think anything from 30-55% is probably just balanced macros. (And no better than lower carb percentages, but simply up to the preference of the individual.)
I also agree with the poster who said that the issue with the SAD has nothing to do with macros, but food selection and source. Worldwide diets vary a lot in terms of macro breakdown (traditional diets and otherwise) and the SAD is not especially notable in its macro breakdown.
There's a confounding issue here that gets political, so I'll try to go into it without getting this shut down. The current recommendations in the US for diabetics are set up to require medication no matter what. Individual doctors will go against them and recommend lower carb to try and get patients off meds, but it's not what guidelines tell them to do. They are supposed to tell patients to eat at the higher end of moderate and depend on the meds to do the work. The numbers at face value don't include that condition, but it really goes hand in hand with the higher (moderate) numbers. For the sake of prescribing those meds, they'll describe 150-200 as "reducing carbs.". When people actually reduce carbs, meaning 100 range on down, many lose the meds completely.
My husband tested high at his last appt. The preprinted literature the doctor handed him followed those guidelines, eat plenty of carbs and take meds. It didn't mention the option to reduce more and not take meds. Fortunately our doctor is more interested in his health than the national guidelines.
Sounds like something my SO would say.
Interestingly enough, my endo gave me a choice: medication or lower my carbs further. I couldn't imagine that lowering carbs any further would be possible for me..so I opted to try medication. It was a carb blocker called acarbose. It was amazing. It worked the way it was supposed to and kept my blood glucose more stable than it had been in a long time. I noticed that I was lowering my carb intake more and more every day. Whether it was because I wasn't craving carbs anymore or the warning that if I ate too many I would have issues..I don't know. I noticed once my carb intake was low enough, the medication started causing my blood glucose to drop (which is what it's supposed to do for a diabetic but not a hypoglycemic). I discontinued the medication and continued with low carb without issue. The only time I have had a hypoglycemic episode since was from drinking too much vodka at my cousins wedding..and woke up with a fasting glucose of 48. So medication helped me, to a point, but I don't need to take anything if I keep my carbs low enough.
I suppose I could take the acarbose and eat some half baked ice cream if I wanted. Haha. I'd rather not rely on medication after the first bite of every meal if I don't have to..0 -
It has to do with insulin and the glycemic index peaks in insulin production tell the liver to make fat and cholesterol if you avoid the insulin peaks ie low carb and only complex carbs the liver metabolism changes to burn fat ( cholesterol ) in order to make the glucose your muscles etc need to use.christinev297 wrote: »I'm genuinely interested in the replies to this, as I have the same questions.
The replies are usually riddles that dance around the subject, but never actually state a simple yes or no answer.
I hope the smart *kitten* don't come in and derail this thread
I don't think that's how it works0 -
People talk about how they hate that low carbers talk like their diet is superior. Some people really need to take a look in the mirror.
I haven't really discussed my diet at all...I have no label for my diet...I wouldn't know what to call it...I just eat what I eat, there's nothing superior about it. Y'all are the ones who have fancy labels and then can't actually define them.0 -
It has to do with insulin and the glycemic index peaks in insulin production tell the liver to make fat and cholesterol if you avoid the insulin peaks ie low carb and only complex carbs the liver metabolism changes to burn fat ( cholesterol ) in order to make the glucose your muscles etc need to use.christinev297 wrote: »I'm genuinely interested in the replies to this, as I have the same questions.
The replies are usually riddles that dance around the subject, but never actually state a simple yes or no answer.
I hope the smart *kitten* don't come in and derail this thread
What????
seconded0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »So I guess in conclusion, a low carb diet is completely arbitrary and meaningless.
as is a "high protein diet" or any other subjective choice of words. Always best to define ones terms.
I don't know...it seems like those folks actually have more guidelines than what you seem to be suggesting. I mean, I'm on like 45% carbs right now...guess I'm low carb...even though that's about 225 grams per day.
From here on out, I will simply dismiss low carbers as simply not knowing what they're doing or what they're talking about.
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Weren't you doing so already?
Point being, if it's completely arbitrary and meaningless as your buddy yarwell agrees that it is...then how can I actually take someone who says they're "low carb" serious...I can't take them any more seriously than I can take a "clean eater" or a person who follows paleo, but only certain parts of it and only when they want to.
Srsly...it's just hard to take most people srsly in general when they're just flinging around arbitrary and apparently meaningless labels and what not...0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »So I guess in conclusion, a low carb diet is completely arbitrary and meaningless.
as is a "high protein diet" or any other subjective choice of words. Always best to define ones terms.
I don't know...it seems like those folks actually have more guidelines than what you seem to be suggesting. I mean, I'm on like 45% carbs right now...guess I'm low carb...even though that's about 225 grams per day.
From here on out, I will simply dismiss low carbers as simply not knowing what they're doing or what they're talking about.
Thanks for clearing this up for me.
Weren't you doing so already?
Point being, if it's completely arbitrary and meaningless as your buddy yarwell agrees that it is...then how can I actually take someone who says they're "low carb" serious...I can't take them any more seriously than I can take a "clean eater" or a person who follows paleo, but only certain parts of it and only when they want to.
Srsly...it's just hard to take most people srsly in general when they're just flinging around arbitrary and apparently meaningless labels and what not...
I kind of hear what you are saying. I think it is nuts to think that 20 to 200 grams of carbs would be the range for "low carb"....0 -
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions