Something I learned to avoid carbs
Options
Replies
-
kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....kellysdavies wrote: »What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.
Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.
So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?
No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.
Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?
Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!
Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?
Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »
Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.
Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.
Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.
100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.
The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.
Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.
Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.
Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.
You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.
You don't know science.
So on your theory I shouldn't blindly follow something and I should question it. Urm. So this is what happened with CICO...
Well at least if you ask me how CICO works, how the body works, how macronutrients get metabolized I can explain that I have answers. You can't. You are claiming things that differ from actual science but you yourself said you can't even explain yourself.stevencloser wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »Since it got pushed into page 12, I'll ask again in case you missed it for the 5th time....kellysdavies wrote: »What question do you want answered? I am not the scientist behind the diet - just someone who has tried it after a long time doing CICO and it is so far successful for me.
Really you're going to pretend you didn't see the questions? You even responded to the post by starting out saying "Yez, yes I can". Here I will post the sake questions for a 4th time.
So what you're saying is that by eating fat and carbs together we will not be able to lose fat because our bodies are always burning carbs? So at no point in the day will our body tap into stored fat reserves for energy since we are in a caloric deficit? Does eating fat and carbs negate the laws of thermodynamics?
No. I am not saying this. You will until a certain point. I am saying the body will always use energy from carbs first.
Can you explain to me why then was I able to lose the weight I wanted to (75 lbs) all without following that rule to not eat fat and carbs together?
Yes. For the same reason I was able to lose 1stone7lb on CICO then it stopped despite having probably another stone to go. Because I was starving it. Then my body got used to it and was like 'hang on. We need to start storing some of this'. It readjusted. All CICO work at first. I am not explaining this very well. It's like that American starvation experiment where after a certain point the men weren't losing at the same rate and some even maintaining.. Despite still eating same number of calories a day. According to the CICO theory they should have disappeared!
Are you also saying you can lose weight while being in a caloric surplus?
Yes. Not sure I can be any clearer on this answer?kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »
Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.
Shhh don't talk sense, it's all magic and unicorns, you know that SLL.
Nah. Just understanding food and calories as a unit of measurement properly. While an inch is an inch, a calorie isn't always a calorie once it is in the body. No magic, no unicorns. Basics.
100 calories of apple is the same as 100 calories of cake, except the cake will be a whole lot smaller than than the apple. Your body knows no difference, but your mind might.
The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat. Not all calories are equal.
Why is that the same kind of cookie cutter answer all of you that pop in with these arguments use? Answer the questions and stop with the posts rambling.
Okay. I disagree. A 100 calories of apple is not the same as 100 calories of cake. The body will use the nutrients - or the bits that make them an apple or make them a cake - in different ways.
Well I used CICO the entire way, you failed at it that's your flaw not the flaw of CICO.
You really have no clue how science works. No one on this board should listen to what you're saying because not only are you wrong when you give your stance but you don't even know how you got to the position because you are saying you can't even explain it. It's probably 100% likely that you can't explain it because you are blindly listening to that Zoe woman without questioning anything.
You don't know science.
On the contrary - I could say exactly the same about you! But I won't. I respect your views. I had the same ones. Hard to accept there is another way. Another theory. And more and better, newer science. Remember when eggs were bad for you..or fat was the killer and now it's sugar or smoking was 'good for your lungs'.. .. Yes he's let's just accept whatever we are told and never change our views or open our minds.
Wanna have a look at some of the links I posted? All linking to things listing off exactly why that Zoe person doesn't know what she's talking about.
@kellysdavies
Can you comment on the links the user above posted about Zoe?stevencloser wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »
Oh no, to lose weight on any diet you need to eat at a deficit. There is no way around that.
WRONG. Because you believe all calories are equal. I was you too. I thought so too. I am living proof this is an invalid theory. There is a way around it. Happy I have found it.
So your saying that ingested energy can just disappear? That would imply that you're a black hole.
So yes you are at a deficit, whether you acknowledge it or not.
She starved herself. For a long time period. I saw her for months talking about eating 1000 calories. And now she's saying 800.
She probably had a raging case of adaptive thermogenesis. She's even saying she thought her maintenance was 1300-1400. Not unless she's already super thin. Which would put her, if trying to lose more weight into some dangerous territory. To get 1300 for maintenance on Scooby's, I just plugged in 110 for weight. And she's lost 6 pounds from that. I forgot her exact age, I used 35.
Houston, we have a problem.
Yes you do have a problem. You can't read. I DID NOT EAT 800 calories. I am 5ft1, was 9stone3, age 36, my BMR was something like 1300. My TDEE maybe 1500 maybe a bit more. NOT ENOUGH for me. I can not sustain this. I did eat 1000 calories for a while because this was the most I could eat and still lose a tiny - ounces - of weight. Bearing in mind I could go down to around 7stone12 and still be in my healthy weight range. I would have had to go to 800 to lose weight without it taking 6 years or something stupid.
You said, in reply to a post of mine suggesting you do a refeed at maintenance, that YOU DID THAT. If you ate 1300 and thought it was a refeed, it wasn't.
You're not paying attention to what I'm saying. You had adaptive thermogenesis. That's why your rate of loss slowed down. Your TDEE at those stats was around 1600 calories. You should have eaten up to that for a while... about 2 weeks if not more, then slowly backed down to eating about your BMR level. You would have resumed a normal rate of loss at that point.
What you've done now is nothing more than a refeed, just as I've outlined here.
Without presenting proof that you're eating in an actual energy surplus (especially since you only counted calories all of once), I frankly don't believe you, unless you have an undiagnosed underlying medical condition (in which case there really isn't an underlying energy surplus).
Not sure how I can prove it? I could put anything into MFP couldn't I? It wouldn't be proof. So today as an example I burned around 1,600 calories which is prob average (I have a FITBIT)
I ate
Breakfast
4 pieces of streaky bacon
3 eggs cooked in butter
A tomato
Lunch
A pack of antipasto meats
Chicken and veg soup
Dinner (Sunday lunch round the mother in law's!)
Boiled egg salad and loads of olive oil
Roast pork, chicken and cauliflower mash, peas and carrots, brocolli and peas
Strawberries and double cream
Cheddar and Brie
A bit of 85% dark chocolate
Decaf teas and coffees about 4
Yesterday - same breakfast (have the same most days - some days porridge and banana)
Lunch - pork chop and cauliflower rice and courgette noodles cooked in butter
Dinner - duck breast and all the skin and same veg
Full fat Greek yoghurt
I'm being as honest as I can here. No lies. You ca chose to believe me or not. It's fine!
Without weights that doesn't help.
Lol! I don't weigh anymore ! Urm, porridge about 100g, pork chop tesco finest - guess about 200g, duck breast maybe 250 (it was big from the butchers) Greek yoghurt half a 500g tub, bacon no idea - just 4 strips of streaky bacon from the butchers, butter large knob, 10g maybe ? Cauliflower half a whole one (medium sized) oh and that has butter in it and onions and garlic ... Strawberries a dessert bowl full and maybe 50ml of double cream (not sure maybe less - the old MFP me still struggles pouring cream on without watching it!) ...
Ding ding ding! Here's your problem. You have no clue how many calories you are eating because you don't weigh your food. It's simple. Weigh your food if you want to lose weight.
I don't want to! I don't want to weigh my food! I don't NEED to know how many calories I am eating because it doesn't matter. That's the whole frigging point of what I am doing.
I am losing weight. I am not eating processed foods, I am eating all natural foods. I am not mixing fats and carbs (apart from veg and salad). That's all there is to it and I am losing weight. Again. And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now.
I thought you only lost 6 pounds eating this way? Now it's a stone and a half?
Which would put her at 108 pounds if she started at 9 stone 3 like she said.
How many times ....
I lost a stone and half doing CICO since joining MFP around March last year.
I was 10stone11.
I got down to 9stone3 doing CICO.
Then I stalled for six months.
Then I tried something new.
I have since lost on my new way of eating 6lb.
Now I am about 8stone11/12 after a few weeks.
I would like to be 8stone7.
I am 5ft 1.
I could go down to about 7stone10 or something which would be in my healthy weight range.
"And I am eating way more calories than I was doing CICO and I weigh a stone and a half less now."
The way you said that is different from this.
Or the way you read it is different?
No, you just wrote it as if you attribute the stone and a half to to your new way even though you lost the stone and a half with CICO and not even half a stone with your new one.
Oh FFS. Well I didn't because I don't. You just read it that way. I've been quite clear. You're nitpicking for the sake of it.
'Not even half a stone' ... Hmmm... In what 4 ish weeks ... So now I should be doing CICO to lose at a faster pase than 1lb a week?
Think about it: it appears to you that multiple people are not understanding what you're writing. What could the problem be?
You. You're boring. Bore off. This isn't an English lesson. Love your little patronising voice though.
Holy *kitten* that was a lot of scrolling to get to the text box
Well at least that was better manners than coming all claws out like you did initially. There's hope for you yet
But I take back my earlier statement: you and your little diet are nothing if not interesting!
0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »I love these people who have no idea how much they are eating but insist they are eating at a surplus despite losing weight (or vice versa).
Yup.
Doesn't sounds that different from the menu I was using when I was eating 1250.
Well, except for 200 g of pork chop (with bone or without?) or 250 g of duck breast which seems unlikely.
Without bone and it was a massive duck breast from the butchers! This is a guess but it won't be far off. I am not lying. I have no reason to.
We're not saying you're lying. We're saying you're overestimating.
After a year or so weighing all my food I'm pretty accurate at eyeballing. Amazes my husband. But sure okay let's say 200g. Minimum.
I'm pretty good at eyeballing and I know it's not accurate enough to make claims.
See video I posted earlier.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
Looks almost the same but one day has over 1000 calories morethan the other.
I am however excellent at getting almost exactly 100 grams of spaghetti out of the package.
Okay so now we're arguing how much my duck breast weighed. Things are getting tense in this debate ... Lol.
You're not measuring so you can't be sure about the weights, if you can't be sure about the weights you can't be sure about the calories, so you claiming you eat above maintenance is unsubstantiated.
What's your rebuttal?
Just from one day when I was curious I entered my cals and it was about 1900 and I had burned 1600 ish according to FITBIT. Who knows the next day depending on what I ate it may have been less and I burned more. I dunno. But. What I do know is that I feel like I am eating shed loads more and I feel more satisfied and I am enjoying it more than counting calories and I am losing weight. So even if you're theory is that I am still just burning more than I am eating which is why I am losing weight you can therefore accept that this might be another diet for people to have a go out IF they are not getting on with CICO, if they don't want to weigh food and if they want to stop counting calories.
If people don't want to and are happy with this way of life then cool beans. Just weigh them first
Do you wear your fitbit 24 hours a day?0 -
kellysdavies wrote: »kellysdavies wrote: »
Okay, then why are you hanging around?strategicchibi wrote: »I don't care who did what, this is a clusterf*ck of negativity.kellysdavies wrote: »I need my bed now. I'll just end on this. Say I'm wrong and this is all wrong and I am only now losing weight at a good but steady slow pace -and it's making me happy and I feel good again and super healthy - but really it just boils down to the fact I am eating less calories than I am exerting (not saying I agree with this theory but for the sake of ending as a group of human beings who ought to just at least try and be civil and help one another) then shouldn't this at least be considered as an alternative way from the traditional CICO method (eat anything and everything, weigh and log, just don't go over your weekly cals and you'll lose weight) for those people who, like me, reached a point they didn't like and want to try something else? If it boils down to the same theory you all live and die by and it's not damaging and the person enjoys it and lose weight then can't we just agree there might be different means to the end?
This is my end. Night night xx
Nope, because you are making false claims while prompting a diet to people you can't even explain.
Also, remember everyone. Don't eat carbs and fat together but eat all the cheese you want.
Yep. Well done. Almost there...
Because cheese is either all fat or all carbs right? 2 different kinds of cheese?
Cheese has hardly any carb content.
But it has fat content. You shouldn't, by the rules of your eating plan, be able to eat it with a carb.
0 -
I am sure you're aware of the term "essential amino acids" and "essential fatty acids". They need to be consumed by humans as part of a healthy diet. Have you ever heard of "essential carbs?" No, they are not "essential" for humans.
No, getting only 20% of your calories from carbs is not healthy.mandyclay wrote:Carbs cause insulin levels to rise in your body, which in return make you eat more
and gain weight. Carbs are horrible! You wanna see some fast weightloss? Just set your carbs to
20% and you will be blown away
It should be 45 - 65% of calories.
Here's a table from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition which shows the levels for all macronutrients:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/1/1/T1.expansion.html
Surely they know what they're talking about, have done research, are educated in the topic, etc.
.
Um, no. Wrong. That's why carbs, fat, & protein are the macronutrients. (All of them.)pu wrote:Carbs are not essential, fat and proteins are
Frankly they're not needed in a diet. People following a very low carb, high fat diet improved their health indicators, they become "healthier".
"The present study shows the beneficial effects of a long-term ketogenic diet. It significantly reduced the body weight and body mass index of the patients. Furthermore, it decreased the level of triglycerides, LDL cholesterol and blood glucose, and increased the level of HDL cholesterol. Administering a ketogenic diet for a relatively longer period of time did not produce any significant side effects in the patients. Therefore, the present study confirms that it is safe to use a ketogenic diet for a longer period of time than previously demonstrated."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2716748/
Frankly, no those organizations don't know what they're talking about.
While I disagree with MKEgal's assertion that you need at least 45% carbs, I didn't fail to note the macronutrient ration on that keto diet in the study you posted.
It didn't eliminate carbs completely. There are still some.
Your assertion that carbs aren't "necessary" would seem to me, need some proof with a complete absence of them.
0 -
Sciencebeliever wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat.
So you're basing your stance on your assumption of studies making assumptions. Got it
Not sure what you don't understand about the study. High-fat is much more successful for weight loss than high-carb. It's right there in the article. Why do you have to be so argumentative?
Except in the cases where it isn't, which is also in the article. And the fact that one restricted calories to a certain amount while the others could eat however much (or rather little) they wanted. The ones on high fat created a bigger deficit, it's not rocket science.0 -
Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat than with sugar-loaded and grain-based food (when I say "you" I don't mean everybody).
That's absolutely why it works for me. I am doing low carb, but let's not let get it twisted....that doesn't mean I can eat whatever I want without any regard. I count calories. I log everything. I find with low carb that I am much more satisfied and not hungry nearly as often as well I am not eating low carb. It's the deficit that gets the job done. The job is just easier for me when I eat a lower carb diet (less than 80g a day).
Respectable answer^^^
Very respectable answer.
Also, the definition of low carb varies, and doesn't automatically mean excluding 'sugar-loaded and grain-based' food. By some figures (provided by low-carbers in another thread), I eat low carb at around 100g a day (I've always referred to it as moderate). I don't exclude anything. Last week I had gelato for dessert most days. On Saturday I had both very grainy toast and pizza.
Calorie deficit first and foremost, and then whatever works for you to get there and keep it sustainable.0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat than with sugar-loaded and grain-based food (when I say "you" I don't mean everybody).
That's absolutely why it works for me. I am doing low carb, but let's not let get it twisted....that doesn't mean I can eat whatever I want without any regard. I count calories. I log everything. I find with low carb that I am much more satisfied and not hungry nearly as often as well I am not eating low carb. It's the deficit that gets the job done. The job is just easier for me when I eat a lower carb diet (less than 80g a day).
Respectable answer^^^
Very respectable answer.
Also, the definition of low carb varies, and doesn't automatically mean excluding 'sugar-loaded and grain-based' food. By some figures (provided by low-carbers in another thread), I eat low carb at around 100g a day (I've always referred to it as moderate). I don't exclude anything. Last week I had gelato for dessert most days. On Saturday I had both very grainy toast and pizza.
Calorie deficit first and foremost, and then whatever works for you to get there and keep it sustainable.
Amen
0 -
Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat than with sugar-loaded and grain-based food (when I say "you" I don't mean everybody).
That's absolutely why it works for me. I am doing low carb, but let's not let get it twisted....that doesn't mean I can eat whatever I want without any regard. I count calories. I log everything. I find with low carb that I am much more satisfied and not hungry nearly as often as well I am not eating low carb. It's the deficit that gets the job done. The job is just easier for me when I eat a lower carb diet (less than 80g a day).
You, I like.
0 -
Sciencebeliever wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat.
So you're basing your stance on your assumption of studies making assumptions. Got it
Not sure what you don't understand about the study. High-fat is much more successful for weight loss than high-carb. It's right there in the article. Why do you have to be so argumentative?
Do I really need to put up the picture of Jimmy Moore(high-fat) standing next to durianrider(high-carb) again0 -
Sciencebeliever wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat.
So you're basing your stance on your assumption of studies making assumptions. Got it
Not sure what you don't understand about the study. High-fat is much more successful for weight loss than high-carb. It's right there in the article. Why do you have to be so argumentative?
Meh. I'm getting tired and didn't scroll through the whole thing, but an awful lot of those studies weren't exactly long-term. In the one that was over a year, there wasn't a statistically significant difference.
Low-carbing is notorious for a quick initial rate of loss.
0 -
Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat than with sugar-loaded and grain-based food (when I say "you" I don't mean everybody).
That's absolutely why it works for me. I am doing low carb, but let's not let get it twisted....that doesn't mean I can eat whatever I want without any regard. I count calories. I log everything. I find with low carb that I am much more satisfied and not hungry nearly as often as well I am not eating low carb. It's the deficit that gets the job done. The job is just easier for me when I eat a lower carb diet (less than 80g a day).
Respectable answer^^^
Very respectable answer.
Also, the definition of low carb varies, and doesn't automatically mean excluding 'sugar-loaded and grain-based' food. By some figures (provided by low-carbers in another thread), I eat low carb at around 100g a day (I've always referred to it as moderate). I don't exclude anything. Last week I had gelato for dessert most days. On Saturday I had both very grainy toast and pizza.
Calorie deficit first and foremost, and then whatever works for you to get there and keep it sustainable.
^Same carb count as Nony. I had a candy bar and gluten free pasta today.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat than with sugar-loaded and grain-based food (when I say "you" I don't mean everybody).
That's absolutely why it works for me. I am doing low carb, but let's not let get it twisted....that doesn't mean I can eat whatever I want without any regard. I count calories. I log everything. I find with low carb that I am much more satisfied and not hungry nearly as often as well I am not eating low carb. It's the deficit that gets the job done. The job is just easier for me when I eat a lower carb diet (less than 80g a day).
Respectable answer^^^
Very respectable answer.
Also, the definition of low carb varies, and doesn't automatically mean excluding 'sugar-loaded and grain-based' food. By some figures (provided by low-carbers in another thread), I eat low carb at around 100g a day (I've always referred to it as moderate). I don't exclude anything. Last week I had gelato for dessert most days. On Saturday I had both very grainy toast and pizza.
Calorie deficit first and foremost, and then whatever works for you to get there and keep it sustainable.
^Same carb count as Nony. I had a candy bar and gluten free pasta today.
Huh... on that definition, I apparently eat low carb most of the time without even trying.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »Nony_Mouse wrote: »Sciencebeliever wrote: »23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat diets. I don't think this is made up. "The low-carb groups often lost 2-3 times as much weight as the low-fat groups. In a few instances there was no significant difference."
Here is my favorite: "In most cases, calories were restricted in the low-fat groups, while the low-carb groups could eat as much as they wanted."
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The problem is we have no idea how many calories the low carb group were consuming, because they weren't asked to count. Therefore the results aren't actually comparable. In all likelihood the low carb group lost more because they were eating fewer calories, cos CICO.
That certainly is possible. If true, it would be a reason why low-carb high-fat seems to work. You just need fewer calories to feel full with lots of fat than with sugar-loaded and grain-based food (when I say "you" I don't mean everybody).
That's absolutely why it works for me. I am doing low carb, but let's not let get it twisted....that doesn't mean I can eat whatever I want without any regard. I count calories. I log everything. I find with low carb that I am much more satisfied and not hungry nearly as often as well I am not eating low carb. It's the deficit that gets the job done. The job is just easier for me when I eat a lower carb diet (less than 80g a day).
Respectable answer^^^
Very respectable answer.
Also, the definition of low carb varies, and doesn't automatically mean excluding 'sugar-loaded and grain-based' food. By some figures (provided by low-carbers in another thread), I eat low carb at around 100g a day (I've always referred to it as moderate). I don't exclude anything. Last week I had gelato for dessert most days. On Saturday I had both very grainy toast and pizza.
Calorie deficit first and foremost, and then whatever works for you to get there and keep it sustainable.
^Same carb count as Nony. I had a candy bar and gluten free pasta today.
Huh... on that definition, I apparently eat low carb most of the time without even trying.
Don't worry, I'm sure someone will be along to tell us we're not low carb because of those tasty things (in no way implying that is the opinion of all low carb adherents, just a select few who've drunk a bit much of the sugar-free kool aid).0 -
None of what you've listed are 'processed carbs'.lemurcat wrote:greek yogurt ... is obviously processed carbs...
Baby carrots are also processed carbs...
tomatoes aren't yet in season - so more processed carbs.
Heck, I might even have steel cut oats for breakfast.
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.
How does putting something in a can make it 'processed'? They have more salt than is healthy for
many people, but they're still pretty close to natural.
And oats which have been cut up or pressed into flakes are not 'processed'.
.
Healthy carbs are _not_ more expensive than processed / simple carbs (and fat, etc.)!MrPlate wrote:Take a look at populations that must eat that way because of the high cost of
healthier carbs. Severe crisis levels.
I don't know where that lie began, but it can easily be disproved by going to the grocery store.
Write down the prices & weights of various whole foods in the produce section, then write down the
prices & weights of various processed foods (such as potato chips).
When I did this, I found that for almost the same price (within maybe 20c), one could purchase EITHER:
a - a family-size bag of potato chips (about 1 lb, probably a little less)
or
b - one pound EACH of carrots, onions, rice, and dry beans
.
There's no difference.pu wrote:"how do we know if it's psychological of physical?"
.
LOL!peloton wrote:Do you even Anatomy and Physiology, bro?
I had someone at work tell me last week that the reason police officers wear their badge on the
upper left chest is to stop a bullet from hitting their heart.
I told her that no, the heart is actually in the middle/lower part of the chest, under the lower part
of the breastbone, leaning a bit to the left.
She still doesn't believe me.
Never mind the assorted college-level A&P courses, nursing courses, etc.
And never mind that in a 'bulletproof vest' (which we work on pretty much every day), the trauma plate
does NOT protect the area where a badge would be, but DOES protect the area where the heart is.
.melissalatzel wrote:But every cell in the human body requires glucose to function
ORLY?M27 wrote:No, that is not true that every cells needs it to function
.
The CDC disagrees with you.pu wrote:the "exercise more" part in the "eat less exercise more" can be removed.
That's not a viable means to help the obesity problem.
"Most weight loss occurs because of decreased caloric intake. However, evidence shows
the only way to maintain weight loss is to be engaged in regular physical activity."
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
.
That's like saying "not all inches are equal" or "not all ounces are equal".kelly wrote:not all calories are equal
.
You can mention anything you want, but since it's not true, not real, everyone who understandskelly wrote:Is there a rule on here that you can only discuss CICO positively and never
mention any other possible way. You're the obsessed and fanatical ones
science _will_ point out that your opinion is wrong, esp. since we don't want others who might read
this mess to think for an instant that they could eat more than their body needs and lose weight.
.
Those are 2 completely different and unrelated statements.kelly wrote:The body uses 100 calories worth of carb very differently to 100 calories worth of fat.
Not all calories are equal
The first is true, the second is not.
.
[quote=kellysdavies[/quote]No deficit. Most days over what I burn.[/quote]
You should contact your nearest research hospital & present yourself for analysis, because you have
(apparently) successfully violated the laws of physics. You should be written up in major medical
journals so everyone will know they no longer have to eat less than their body needs in order to be
a healthy weight.
.
ORLY?kelly wrote:I haven't told anyone that CICO doesn't work
.
It's not mine, it comes from the professional group for dieticians.mamapeach wrote:While I disagree with MKEgal's assertion that you need at least 45% carbs...
People with degrees in nutrition.
People who have research backing their opinions.
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/1/1/T1.expansion.html0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions