Something I learned to avoid carbs
Replies
-
baby_firefly_666 wrote: »Carbs are only bad if you regularly eat the rubbish ones like white bread, pasta, cake, cookies, pastry, etc etc. Anything in excess is bad for you anyways.
Not true
rubbish carbs .. LOL0 -
LOL
I consistently eat between 300 and 450g carbs daily and my calorie intake is relatively stable
Oh and I eat lemons .. cos I am altruistic
0 -
@kellysdavies
I've read The Harcombe Diet and I've done it ...three times
Been there (twice) got the t-shirt (twice), didn't stick ...failed long term defined as more than 6 months success (3 times) ..
Lost a lot of weight the first time ...crashed and burned as soon as I ate a potato...water weight whooshed back and I thought what's the point, because once your resolve goes on restricting a yummy, pervasive macro the dam just bursts ..only more so
Tried again ...lost a lot of weight quickly again ..."oh look mum, 10lbs in 2 weeks"...ate a slice of toast and whoosh yet again
But good luck ...hope you stick for life ..because it is not an easy "diet plan" to fail ..there is no way to incorporate "normal" living and socialising on it ..it is a constant willpower thing
But some people do very well achieving their calorie defecit through reducing carbs..the medical mumbo-jumbo up front is interesting but I never found a single independent scientific study to back it up
So, it is basically what I thought it was... carb reducing... NOT a plan for food combining which Kelly thinks it is.
0 -
milocamolly wrote: »Geeze...know how to upset hangry people? Talk about how to avoid processed carbs!
Can we accept that sometimes just sometimes people will lose weight by doing different things? Some people it is better to avoid eating high carbs, some it is avoiding eating sugar...who cares! I thought this was a support forum, not a pissing contest to see who is right and who is wrong.
If you look around, buried somewhere in this trainwreck, there was support for a post from someone who low carbs and said she knew she was creating a calorie deficit. There was a LOT of support for her, if I recall.
What there is NOT support for are people who INSIST that low carbing is The One True Way to lose weight.
You have this conversation backwards.
Get used to the climate here, it's a sometimes bumpy ride, but it's always informative. That's what makes it helpful. Don't always expect validation. Validation for crappy ideas isn't helpful.
0 -
well it's lower carb then food combining tbh from what I recall (I'm a little hazy now)
I do remember there were 3 medical conditions that were defined as the root cause and you had to eat in a certain way to get these under control in Phase 1: Candida, Food intolerance and hypoglycemia
but it's basically lower carb and no processed foods etc etc
same old stuff that leads to a calorie defecit but quite well packaged up0 -
Maybe someone can help me. Because it's all about calories, I need help interpreting my data. The days I tried to increase my carbs, and stick to my calorie goal of roughly 2000. SOmething weird happened when I just tried to increase my carbs. I made a graph of it. So what does it mean when I increase my carbs in response to calories?
Well, if you eat 100 cheez its, you're probably going to blow past your calorie goal.0 -
You do realize that 80/10/10 is low in the GI index, so is "low carb"? Also saying it's all about calories doesn't necessarily address the issue at hand.
Are you being serious? When a person consumes 400 grams of carbs, even low GI what is the combined GL per meal? Tell that to a diabetic...
Edit to add: are you aware that 80/10/10 in many cases is predominantly a fruit diet where in addition to high GL you are consuming a large amount of high GI items?
Also the "issue at hand" is precisely what I meant by strategy to fit personal circumstances. Some may want to control hunger with low carb, some may want to do it with high fiber, others will want to work on emotional issues, or on meal timing, or..or..or..
The problem is two concept are being used inappropriately. Here is how it goes:
What causes weight loss: a caloric deficit
How to lose weight: find a successful strategy to achieve a caloric deficit0 -
Or 7 servings of cereal. But truthfully it's not like I am intentionally going over my calorie goal. If I am hungry I eat.I did lower my fat trying to compensate for the increase of carbs. The only reason I increased my carbs in the first place was due to a supplement I am taking. I am going to stop that today. I do keep track of my weight and BF daily. I graphed that data and noticed when i was losing at a steady consistent pace. Calculated the average calories, carbs, proteins, fats. I set my diary to those ratios today. Pretty sure this problem will subside.
At this moment I feel stuffed, sick, and still hungry. Well slight hunger.
If you feel stuffed and sick then what you're feeling isn't hunger. You may still have a desire to eat, but that's not the same thing. This is the self control we were talking about. Honestly, I think if you worked at it, ate those things in reasonable portions and when you wanted to go back for seconds actually stopped yourself and said 'hey Pu, you don't actually need that, go do something else', you would find that that desire to keep eating will eventually go away.0 -
Yes i agree with you, what i am looking at is what are the commonalities of what makes a successful strategy for the general population. We can't eat whatever we as much as we want whenever we want. Something has to be reduced to some extent. There are also other parts to consider.
Calorie reduction is a must for weight loss, but then there is also emotional factors, genetic factors, psychological factors that are associated with food in general or certain types of food. These things are what i am trying to address. Not so much the "weight loss" part. We already know a deficit has to be in place. That's the simple part.
But that's where it falls down isn't it?
The commonality is calorie reduction that's what makes a successful strategy
The other factors are the route in and are specific to individuals .. and IMO the only way it sticks is to come to the realisation yourself over time ... that's how it becomes a personal learning curve, that's how you hit maintenance
in education you can't just package it all up in facts and hand it out - that's one of the reasons prescriptive diets fail IMO
Learn the path to the commonality yourself .. learn your path is what makes maintenance
No?0 -
Yes i agree with you, what i am looking at is what are the commonalities of what makes a successful strategy for the general population. We can't eat whatever we as much as we want whenever we want. Something has to be reduced to some extent. There are also other parts to consider.
Calorie reduction is a must for weight loss, but then there is also emotional factors, genetic factors, psychological factors that are associated with food in general or certain types of food. These things are what i am trying to address. Not so much the "weight loss" part. We already know a deficit has to be in place. That's the simple part.
I don't believe it's possible to plot a simple weight loss strategy for a whole population, otherwise it would have been done already by people more capable and qualified than me or you and we wouldn't find thousands of contradicting dietary advice. The reasons for weight gain are very individual, and the strategies required will also need to be individualized. By touting low carb as the end all strategy for everyone you are excluding a large percentage of people who would find it counterproductive.
As a personal quest for the "perfect diet" for you it's a worthwhile endeavor, but to claim that your N=1 experiences would apply to me is a little bit naive.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
I'm surprised there was any weight loss to be honest. It's very common to indulge on the premise that you've burned enough calories to allow for that. Little do people know that one candy bar can wipe off a 30 minute session of exercise.
Yep. When I was 16, severely overweight, I would go to the gym and work out and burn about 300 calories, and then get a chocolate bar from the vending machine afterwards as a treat. Back then nutrition wasn't the big thing it is these days, and I had no idea what a calorie was, let alone that my one little 'treat' was just undoing all of the work I had done in the gym. And I wondered why I wasn't losing weight
Also, I logged in this morning to see this thread had gained 358 new posts overnight (I'm UK). How has this thread not devolved into memes and gifs yet?! This is unheard of!
0 -
WHo is to say what is fallacious, or misinformation? I am pretty sure most of us have said things that we thought where true later to find out where false. This is the result of lack of education on the subject.
An old excerpt from a forum topic i had from april 18th 2013(3yrs ago)...
"4. Carbs and more carbs
The most critical macro nutrient is protein. You should consume about 1g of protein per pound of Lean body mass. I like the ratio 50% protein 25% fat 25% carbs. This is just a starting point, these ratios aren't necessary at all. I don't care what your macros are as long as you get about 1g of protein per pound of lean body mass. You will find optimal carb levels for yourself eventually, so whatever method you choose doesn't matter. The 10-15% deficit listed above should come from carbs if you're not losing weight. If you do low carb and not losing. Carbs are important for thyroid regulation(low carb diets slow down your thyroid function). So I wouldn't cut them out completely. If you're one of those ketosis people, I kind of am. You should do something similar to CKD(cylical ketosis diet) to prevent thyroid problems. This just involves low carb for 5 days, 2 days of high carbs. That's all."
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/557201/how-to-lose-weight-correctly/p1
A reply to a blog post I found about someone saying they can't eat carbs 17 months
"Pu_239 wrote 17 months ago:
You can eat all the carbs you want as long as you're in a calorie deficit. Fat loss is about calories, not carbs.."
One of my blog posts, one part discusses binging
" 2. Binging
Binging is a period of excessive or uncontrolled indulgence in food or drink. People are always complaining about binging.
Solution: Guess what? binging doesn’t make you fat. Going over your calories does. One of the biggest problems with binging is that 95% of the time it’s on food with low nutritional density. This means its food that doesn’t have many nutrients. The solution to this is pretty simple, stop eating crap. Go binge on some lettuce or water. Then you get the people who don’t cook their own food, they live with someone else such as a parent or something and they have no choice of what they eat.
You may not have a choice of what you eat; you do have a choice of “HOW MUCH” you eat. It’s about calories remember? If you have this problem log your calories, doesn’t matter what you eat just log it. See what you average for a week then you slowly cut down on your total calorie intake. Lets say by 100 calories a week. That’s not hard. "
Obviously my views have changed over time through experience and education. I already preached all the, "it's about CICO stuff" years ago... been there, done that.
Those two together don't make any sense. Any normal weight person would be on a 1000-ish calorie diet if they went for that.0 -
How does putting something in a can make it 'processed'? They have more salt than is healthy forNone of what you've listed are 'processed carbs'.
Yes, yogurt has been changed from the original milk, thanks to bacteria, but that doesn't mean it's processed.
How are carrots processed carbs?!?!?! The only thing done to 'baby' carrots is that they're tumbled.
many people, but they're still pretty close to natural.
And oats which have been cut up or pressed into flakes are not 'processed'. [/quote]
Yes, these are all forms of processing, as is cooking. As is cutting meat for sale (hint, you have to take it to the processor). You are apparently thinking of "highly processed" but people use these terms imprecisely.
Why is flour (whole grain, if you prefer) processed and not the things I mentioned? Flour is of course the classic bogeyman of the anti processed crowd (well, with sugar, of course).
The issue shouldn't be whether it's "processed" or not--I tried out a place that does healthy meals and you can pick whether you want paleo or the like (which I don't do, for the record, but sometimes paleo options are tasty, even if it's ironic to buy premade meals, obviously) and the ingredients are provided, and thus I know they are basically what I would make for lunches. I think it's too expensive to do this much, but I had a difficult week and wanted some new ideas so tried it for a week for lunch. Anyway, obviously "processed"--just like a Lean Cuisine or Marie Callendar pot pie, but also no less healthy than what I normally cook. Whether eating something processed (including a Lean Cuisine) is HIGH calorie or bad for a diet or whatever else has been claimed depends on the specifics about the item. It's ridiculous to choose based on whether you think it's "processed" under your definition vs. the actual facts about the food.
I mentioned the main processed foods I eat above because I DO eat mostly from whole foods (always have, even when I was fat)--I suppose ice cream would be an exception, but is it going to be meaningfully different if I make it myself, which isn't hard? I think not. Yet I'd feel like a moron claiming that I don't eat "processed" foods since all of these things are processed.0 -
lemonsnowdrop wrote: »I don't understand how something being "processed" automatically makes it evil.
Me either.
Also lots of things that seem like "processing" to me apparently aren't. Weird.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »The thing most people who feel attacked don't understand is that most of the people here have no problem with anyone regulating their calories with low carb, gluten free, going vegan, clean eating, quitting sugar, or even facial analysis diet (google that). The problem arises when said people advocate ideas that are fallacious at best and spread misinformation instead of recognising their diet for what it is: a strategy that helps them regulate calories within a chosen set of rules that they find effective for that purpose.
Yes, this.0 -
Between the drama, the attacks and the feeling of
for the past 10 pages, I am locking this thread.
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.
2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 396K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.3K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions