thoughts on low carb diets?

baconslave

JPW1990 wrote: »

iluvstrwbrries wrote: »

The thing is, eating low carb the way I do it...I have a hard time meeting 1000 calories a day..let alone the 1350 I have set up for myself..sometimes I will indulge myself and eat what I want and then my calories will go as high as 1500 but those days are rare.....

but most of the time Im sitting at home grumbling to myself " aw man, I need 50 more calories or my dairy wont post."

Im not understanding how low carb translates to not low calorie

It can if you're doing "lazy keto" where you don't measure or pay much attention to things. I gained after 13 years of maintenance that way, just a combination of not giving a damn because of other health stuff going on, and not lowering my intake from pretty active to basically bed ridden. I stayed in ketosis the entire time, but I put on quite a bit of weight over 2 years. Bacon is only your friend in moderation

Right.
I've been doing keto for almost a year now. The focus on keeping the fat up is good, but yes that causes problems of its own. Just too darn easy to overeat some fats if you aren't paying attention. Like nuts and bacon for me. Lazy keto is nothing but a formula for maintenance in my case. So I track like a fiend. Portion creep can affect ANYONE over time. I eat a whole lot less than I used too, but it's easy to let "a little extra" creep in as life gets busy. A little extra adds up to a gain in some cases.

Keeping mindful is key. Not always easy, but key.

baconslave

cwolfman13 wrote: »

Orphia wrote: »

Those food pyramids are just wrong.

This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.


http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid

where's the shrimp on the barbie and Fosters? I'm calling bull *kitten*.

LOL! Priorities, mates.

lemurcat12

mwyvr wrote: »

I consider lower carbs + better carbs as long term fix. Lower carbs is situational - my carb intake was off the charts a year ago, even if half of them might have been better carbs.

Maybe I'm misreading--it seems like you are saying that lowering carbs is always good, but what that means is relative to what someone is eating. So you lowered from, I don't know, 70% and ended up at 30-35%, but someone at 45% maybe should lower more?

I think lowering carbs (or even low carb) can work well for people and works especially well for many who are overweight or insulin insensitive (which can be associated with each other to some degree) and also for many who are less active. Leaner, more insulin sensitive, and more active people often will feel better on the more traditional carb recommendations or in some cases (I suppose) even the really high 80% type things that some push (and some with high maintenance, like Kenyan runners, follow), although I could never do that (and I have enjoyed 40% even when quite active). Basically, although there are averages, it's personal preference and there are reasons why personal preference might be different longer term/in maintenance than while losing, although it need not be. (I don't agree with those who think that one must follow a plan while losing that you plan to follow for life. Much of how I ate while losing are consistent with how I like to eat in general--home cooking, whole foods--but stuff like macros I think can vary over time, as does the calorie limit, of course.

I also think that for me the overall make up of carbs matter more than the specific amount of carbs, although I will include anything I like (luckily for me I'm picky about certain things, though) in moderation, as I define it. I don't do that well with lots of highly refined baked goods, but since I tend to prefer those items homemade and I'm lazy about baking, it sorts itself out and I can still have pie on holidays and other special occasions.

lemurcat12

mwyvr wrote: »

I consider lower carbs + better carbs as long term fix. Lower carbs is situational - my carb intake was off the charts a year ago, even if half of them might have been better carbs.

Maybe I'm misreading--it seems like you are saying that lowering carbs is always good, but what that means is relative to what someone is eating. So you lowered from, I don't know, 70% and ended up at 30-35%, but someone at 45% maybe should lower more?

I think lowering carbs (or even low carb) can work well for people and works especially well for many who are overweight or insulin insensitive (which can be associated with each other to some degree) and also for many who are less active, but is hardly uniformly good advice or a universal fix. Leaner, more insulin sensitive, and more active people often will feel better on the more traditional carb recommendations or in some cases (I suppose) even the really high 80% type things that some push (and some with high maintenance, like Kenyan runners, follow), although I could never do that (and I have enjoyed 40% even when quite active). Basically, although there are averages, it's personal preference and there are reasons why personal preference might be different longer term/in maintenance than while losing, although it need not be. (I don't agree with those who think that one must follow a plan while losing that you plan to follow for life. Much of how I ate while losing are consistent with how I like to eat in general--home cooking, whole foods--but stuff like macros I think can vary over time, as does the calorie limit, of course.

I also think that for me the overall make up of carbs matter more than the specific amount of carbs, although I will include anything I like (luckily for me I'm picky about certain things, though) in moderation, as I define it. I don't do that well with lots of highly refined baked goods, but since I tend to prefer those items homemade and I'm lazy about baking, it sorts itself out and I can still have pie on holidays and other special occasions.

iluvstrwbrries

.

iluvstrwbrries

Orphia wrote: »

Those food pyramids are just wrong.

This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.


http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid

That's because it's not the standard food pyramid...it's a low carb food pyramid.

Sabine_Stroehm

iluvstrwbrries wrote: »

Orphia wrote: »

Those food pyramids are just wrong.

This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.


http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid

That's because it's not the standard food pyramid...it's a low carb food pyramid.

This is low carb? How?

Sabine_Stroehm

earlnabby wrote: »

I am eating reduced carb (max of 180 g daily out of 2100 calories) to treat T2 diabetes. I have also found that I have plenty of energy, I am rarely hungry, and I haven't had the issues with hair falling out and crepey skin that I did when losing while eating higher carbs. I get more satisfied with higher protein and fat but YMMV.

Congrats on finding a carb level that works for you!

mwyvr

lemurcat12 wrote: »

mwyvr wrote: »

I consider lower carbs + better carbs as long term fix. Lower carbs is situational - my carb intake was off the charts a year ago, even if half of them might have been better carbs.

Maybe I'm misreading--it seems like you are saying that lowering carbs is always good, but what that means is relative to what someone is eating. So you lowered from, I don't know, 70% and ended up at 30-35%, but someone at 45% maybe should lower more? [...] I also think that for me the overall make up of carbs matter more than the specific amount of carbs,

I moved your second (bolded) statement near your first because that's basically what I've found - reducing carbs and improving the sources has resulted in notable improvements for me.

Are those improvements as a result of the different mix (few refined, more from vegetables and fruit) or the reduction of carbohydrates as a % of my intake? I can't quantify that and am unwilling to experiment. Logically it would seem that being mindful of carb "quality" / glycemic index can offer positive health impacts that would benefit a great many people.

I think lowering carbs (or even low carb) can work well for people and works especially well for many who are overweight or insulin insensitive (which can be associated with each other to some degree) and also for many who are less active. Leaner, more insulin sensitive, and more active people often will feel better on the more traditional carb recommendations

Having once been a lean person I'm not sure I felt better with higher carbs, it was just what we did back then.

I'm becoming again the distance runner I once was. Back when I was a marathon distance runner, carb loading for long runs + races was pretty standard practice. Going for a run? Have some carbs. Thinking of going for a run? Have some carbs - it can't hurt. Then again I was also younger and more likely to be out having a pint or two. More carbs... but that didn't matter when one is running many hours a week. Or did it?

Thinking on fuelling for endurance athletes has since evolved, although carbs still dominate the thinking of many. Witness the popularity of high carb "gels" being marketed to the running crowd, the latest iteration of carb-fueling that was born of the sports-drink trend.

My personal experience is that I do not need to raise my carb intake to support my training. I've no problem running two hours on an empty stomach following my everyday diet, and lately I've been making extra effort to ensure I consume few or zero carbs 12 hours before I set out on long training runs.

I think carb loading has a place if one is racing (competitively or for personal bests) but those can still be short term diet modifications incorporated into a low carb baseline regimen. I'm going to experiment with this myself when the time comes.

there are reasons why personal preference might be different longer term/in maintenance than while losing, although it need not be. (I don't agree with those who think that one must follow a plan while losing that you plan to follow for life. Much of how I ate while losing are consistent with how I like to eat in general--home cooking, whole foods--but stuff like macros I think can vary over time, as does the calorie limit, of course.

Since I made the commitment to lose and get fit again I've been following one basic plan - eat what's necessary for my activity level. I am not eating a "special" diet to lose, I'm eating a sustainable diet for the long term.

The only marked shift in my consumption in terms of macros has been the reduction in carbs as a percentage, and efforts to improve the sources of those carbs. That's easy to do as we don't eat out much and have always cooked from scratch wherever we can. Because we aren't making major changes to our household meals to accommodate me, and because my personal mix is effectively supporting a major increase in my activity level, the approach is sustainable for me, and for the rest of the family, for the long run.

I make the savoury and the breads, my wife does the fun baking. I don't bake bread as much though... I really need to get on to developing a good lower glycemic index bread I can enjoy and I might just work on that this week.

lemurcat12

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

iluvstrwbrries wrote: »

Orphia wrote: »

Those food pyramids are just wrong.

This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.


http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid

That's because it's not the standard food pyramid...it's a low carb food pyramid.

This is low carb? How?

Yeah, it's clearly not.

It's supposed to be a "healthy food pyramid," but is also Australian.

Curious who sponsors it.

JPW1990

Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »

iluvstrwbrries wrote: »

Orphia wrote: »

Those food pyramids are just wrong.

This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.


http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid

That's because it's not the standard food pyramid...it's a low carb food pyramid.

This is low carb? How?

My impression it was someone in the "low carb will kill you camp" recommending everyone should eat the way their graphic dictates.

mwyvr

Reading the Aussie background material (much of it frank and good) it doesn't appear that they are pushing grains but sometimes graphics like this reveal underlying intent and pressures from other areas or levels of government and their influencers from industry.

Australia is after all one of the world's largest producers of grains.

lemurcat12

mwyvr wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

mwyvr wrote: »

I consider lower carbs + better carbs as long term fix. Lower carbs is situational - my carb intake was off the charts a year ago, even if half of them might have been better carbs.

Maybe I'm misreading--it seems like you are saying that lowering carbs is always good, but what that means is relative to what someone is eating. So you lowered from, I don't know, 70% and ended up at 30-35%, but someone at 45% maybe should lower more? [...] I also think that for me the overall make up of carbs matter more than the specific amount of carbs,

I moved your second (bolded) statement near your first because that's basically what I've found - reducing carbs and improving the sources has resulted in notable improvements for me.

I'm not questioning whether it works for you (I think it does work for many). I was questioning whether you were really saying it was good advice for everyone. I do not think that lower carbs are always better. (I do think carb source matters.)

Anyway, I kind of am experimenting with this, although it's more following my body's cues and paying attention than specifically deciding to do 30% carbs and then 40% and 50%.

Having once been a lean person I'm not sure I felt better with higher carbs, it was just what we did back then.

Currently I do feel better with slightly higher carbs, and I feel more energetic running and biking (I don't carb load, but I compare based on what I've been eating). Again, not saying this means everyone would, but questioning the idea that everyone is better off lowering carbs.

Since I made the commitment to lose and get fit again I've been following one basic plan - eat what's necessary for my activity level. I am not eating a "special" diet to lose, I'm eating a sustainable diet for the long term.

The comment to which you responded didn't have to do with your diet, but the argument that people must eat as they lose as they intend to forever and shouldn't try low carb unless they plan to do that forever. I don't agree with that. I think it makes sense to experiment with different macros if that interests you.

Ang108

mwyvr wrote: »

I am definitely in the pro "lower carb" camp. I'm aiming for 30 - 35% total but try not to eat any highly refined carbs... as much as possible at least. That means no plain ol' bread and very little bread at all over the course of a week. I think I had three slices this week after many weeks of zero. No bagels (and I used to live on bagels). No tortillas as a rule. I will have some whole grain multi-grain porridge once in a while. Carbs from vegetables are ok and fruits too but more veges than fruits.

Fats I let float wherever they will go; they are usually my biggest macro. This doesn't worry me as they are generally healthy fats.

I'm losing 2kg a week, and have been for quite some time. I'm not finding the reduced carbs gets in the way of my running (I'll run more than 200km this month). I feel satiated... full even and I don't crave carbs at all.

So far the mix is working very well for me.

I assume when you say " no tortillas " that you mean flour tortillas. It has been proven that corn tortillas are one of the healthiest breads ( flat bread, but still bread ) around, due to the nixtamalisation process the corn goes through before being turned into tortillas.
Wow, two kilos a week is 4.4 pounds which adds up to roughly 17.5 pounds a month and over 50 pounds in three month.
With all due respect, I don't think I can congratulate you on this loss, even though it is spectacular. I do however congratulate you on eating complex carbs instead of highly refined ones. Even though for direct weight loss it makes no difference in itself, it is very good for all over improved health and that can help in weight loss.
I hope you will reconsider such drastic weight loss ( unless you are of course extremely obese, but than I can't imagine anyone running 200 kms a month ) but otherwise wish you the best of Luck !

mwyvr

That was a units of measure typo... I measure in kg (Canadian, eh?) but often talk in pounds here. 1kg a week, 2 pounds a week... and if it's 1 here or 2.5 there I don't fret.

Ang108

Orphia wrote: »

Those food pyramids are just wrong.

This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.


http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid

It seems that without even knowing about the Australian Food pyramid that that's what I have naturally graviated towards more than 30 years ago and will eat forever, because that is what I like.
I had a silent heart attack somewhere in the beginning of March and a not-so-silent one on the 27th of the same month. In my cardiac recovery group ( 27 people ) I am the only one that had not to undergo major changes in their diet. I have normal BP, good cholesterol, low to normal tryglicerides, am not pre-diabetic, all aided according to my cardiologist by a life long balanced pretty much natural diet. My heart attacks were caused by a damaged pericardium due to RA since I was a teenager and Lupus, which I battle for the last four years. This kind of eating has made a big difference in my pain levels, the almost discapacitating fatigue, has allowed me to walk for years now without a cane, maintain a full time job and allow me a level of well being I did not know before the dietary changes.
Now the only diet change was that for 90 days I am supposed to abstain from egg yolks to see if my medium to high normal bad cholesterol can be changed without more meds, I was put off certain green leafy vegetables, because the oxilates in them keep life saving heart medicines like Coumadin/Warfarin from being absorbed and my daily calorie intake has been decreased by 200 calories so I lose a bit more than .5 pound a week, because I need to for heart health. While everyone complains about having to eat 7 portions of vegetables each day and drink low fat milk, I happily continue with what I ate before.
Right now I am really glad to find re-inforcement in the way I eat from a very unexpected corner....:o).

mwyvr

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'm not questioning whether it works for you (I think it does work for many). I was questioning whether you were really saying it was good advice for everyone. I do not think that lower carbs are always better. (I do think carb source matters.)

Good advice for everyone? Dunno, but I'd be willing to speculate that a long term study of individuals on a 30-40% carb diet from better carb sources will show big statistical health improvement outcomes for that group over the SAD group when measured over lifetimes, not just whether we feel good on a ride or run on a particular day.

I think it makes sense to experiment with different macros if that interests you.

Experimentation is good, for some. Others, perhaps less self-aware, need structure. To each their own. For me lowering carbs was an experiment that ran contrary to everything I was taught over many years of running track and long distance. How many pasta weeks have I been through leading up to an event? Quite a few!

The comment to which you responded didn't have to do with your diet, but the argument that people must eat as they lose as they intend to forever and shouldn't try low carb unless they plan to do that forever. I don't agree with that.

An argument might be made for targeted diets to achieve certain weight loss goals and then shifting to a more natural diet for maintenance.

But I also think that, on balance, many people with weight loss (or gain) needs can be well served by adopting long term sustainable dietary + nutrition practices. Eat right and simply reduce (or increase) portions + activity (if sedentary) to create the necessary deficit (surplus) and eventually when the weight target is achieved... balance.

For many here weight loss objectives can only be safely achieved over many months (my own road will last ~ 12 months) - why not use that time to instill healthy, sustainable, dietary changes that the individual won't have to alter much or at all once they arrive at the end of their program?

Repetition builds habit. Keep it simple? What's wrong with that?

Ang108

iluvstrwbrries wrote: »

Orphia wrote: »

Those food pyramids are just wrong.

This is the Nutrition Australia Healthy Eating Pyramid.


http://nutritionaustralia.org/national/resource/healthy-eating-pyramid

That's because it's not the standard food pyramid...it's a low carb food pyramid.

Why would you say that this is a low carb pyramid ?
Are you aware that the two lower levels are ALL carbohydrates....albeit complex and not the processed simple sugar, doughnut, white bread and other processed ones ?

Hollywood_Porky

mwyvr wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'm not questioning whether it works for you (I think it does work for many). I was questioning whether you were really saying it was good advice for everyone. I do not think that lower carbs are always better. (I do think carb source matters.)

Good advice for everyone? Dunno, but I'd be willing to speculate that a long term study of individuals on a 30-40% carb diet from better carb sources will show big improvement outcomes for that group over the SAD group when measured over lifetimes, not just whether we feel good on a ride or run on a particular day.

The comment to which you responded didn't have to do with your diet, but the argument that people must eat as they lose as they intend to forever and shouldn't try low carb unless they plan to do that forever. I don't agree with that. I think it makes sense to experiment with different macros if that interests you.

Experimentation is good, for some. Others, perhaps less self-aware, need structure. To each their own.

But I also think that, on balance, people with weight loss (or gain) can be well served by adopting long term sustainable dietary + nutrition practice and then simply reducing (or increasing) portions + increasing activity (if sedentary) to create the necessary deficit (surplus).

Keep it simple? What's wrong with that?

I agree. I state this repeatedly. It's about being healthy - being healthy means adopting practices that over the course of time creates positive odds of continued success. That gets lost around here when it's just about "weight" loss and calorie deficits. Not sustainable.

lemurcat12

mwyvr wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I'm not questioning whether it works for you (I think it does work for many). I was questioning whether you were really saying it was good advice for everyone. I do not think that lower carbs are always better. (I do think carb source matters.)

Good advice for everyone? Dunno, but I'd be willing to speculate that a long term study of individuals on a 30-40% carb diet from better carb sources will show big improvement outcomes for that group over the SAD group when measured over lifetimes, not just whether we feel good on a ride or run on a particular day.

I think there are obvious problems with the SAD (as currently defined), but carb percentage is not one of them. (Carb source, on the other hand, is.)

Many extremely healthy traditional diets have higher carb percentages than the current SAD, and if you compare people with good health results--from something like the Nurse's Study--and those without, carb percentage isn't that significant.

Experimentation is good, for some. Others, perhaps less self-aware, need structure. To each their own.

Sigh. Yes, I wasn't saying everyone needed to experiment, but that the claim that a way of eating should never be tried unless you want to commit to it for life is wrong. It was actually supposed to be supportive of trying low carb or other similar experiments, as people seem to commonly say that no one should reduce carbs unless they plan to eat that way for life. IMO, different carb levels may work at different times. But never mind.

But I also think that, on balance, people with weight loss (or gain) can be well served by adopting long term sustainable dietary + nutrition practice and then simply reducing (or increasing) portions + increasing activity (if sedentary) to create the necessary deficit (surplus).

I agree with this.