thoughts on low carb diets?
Replies
-
iluvstrwbrries wrote: »iluvstrwbrries 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 ?
This is when reading an entire thread is a good thing... The Aussie post was responding to my food pyramid post ...I advising them that my post was low carb not the standard she/he posted.
I have read the whole thread.
This is what you said:
" That's because it's not the standard food pyramid...it's a low carb food pyramid ".
There is no way to know that you were referring to your own low carb food pyramid. It is a general statement and to make it personal any of the words like " I, my, mine " are missing.
0 -
Maybe after reading the on-topic posts the original poster, @jsands755, could come back to their thread and follow up with more info on their concern or more questions.0
-
lauraesh0384 wrote: »Personally, I love low carb and the benefits. I get to lose weight by eating delicious food. I don't experience that carb coma after eating. I have more energy. But the thing with low carb is you have to make it a change in lifestyle. You can't expect to drop x amount of weight and revert back to your old eating habits and not gain weight back. Honestly, I don't really miss bread, rice, pasta, pizza, etc. But even when I'm thinking, "pizza sounds really good right now", there's a low carb option for that. Low carb works, end of story. I went from 240 lbs to my current 175. The hardest part is being around people who eat carbs. You tell them you can't have something because it's high in carbs. "Oh, you're allowed a cheat day". Yes I am, but it's not worth it to throw away a few days of hard work, and then feeling like *kitten* afterwards because you ate a carb loaded meal.
Why do so many people when they speak of carbs only think of rice, pasta, processed white bread and pizza ? There is much more to carbohydrates. When I think of them I usually think of vegetables, fruit, legumes, pulses artesanal bread made from minimally and not chemically processed grains ( with that I think mostly of grain being ground into flour ) and without chemical additives.
Now after reading all of this thread I wonder if people speaking of lower or low carb diets actually all refer to the absence of rice, pasta, processed white bread and pizza, but otherwise eat carbs at the statistically normal rate ?
I think some of the "low carb" people are really just moderate carb.
I think others switched to low carb from the SAD, so probably never really ate much in the way of fruits and veggies or whole grains or legumes, etc. That's why I find the constant claim that low carb is healthier slightly irritating--it might be healthier than the way they used to eat, but it's not healthier than the higher carb diets that are typically recommended or that many of us here prefer.
And there are definitely some low carb and paleo types on MFP who are anti legumes and whole grains (as well as refined) and fruit, and even some extreme low carbers who seem to be anti veggie (one I think of who seems to get an insane percentage of his diet from coconut oil and yet slam eating carbs as unhealthy).0 -
The original post:
thoughts on low carb diets?I lose weight easily, but i'm worried about health effects.
What available studies exist on the topic haven't shown any negative health effects.
Of course you need to define what "low carb" means to you in the context of your question, but you've gone silent so naturally the thread is wandering as such things will do.
0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I agree completely. This isn't a competitive thing. Most people, other than professional athletes and Olympians, run for health, fitness, or because they enjoy it.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.
200km a month is nothing to write home about as a runner. It is not even at a competitive (for a rec runner) level. A lot of the studies on LCHF diets and endurance seem to use a very low V02 max.
Why so negative ?
It adds up to a little more than 6.6 km a day and is a heck of a lot more than most of the world's population runs every day. That it does not fit into the class of a High Performance Athlete does not matter, it is an excellent achievement on it's own. I would be very proud for every km/mile I ran and bet I am not the only one.
FYI, there are some professional athletes on low carb diets. If Lebron James and Ray Allen can compete at the level they do while doing low carb, I think that proves you can do low carb and not have athletic performance suffer.
I don't think it proves that at all, if people are different. It proves that THEY can, and more generally that some can.
That elite athletes so overwhelmingly still fuel with carbs, though, suggests to me that there's probably on average an advantage to doing so. One part of this may just be the total amount of calories needed, but given the likelihood that elite athletes would try any way of eating if it gave them an advantage, I still think the likely conclusion is that carbs usually are superior for this purpose.
It hardly matters, of course, as few of us are elite athletes.
I have found that my own experience running and biking longer distances and training for a half ironman is that my body tends to feel better and crave more carbs when I'm extra active. I've never done full keto, though--I just don't see the point for me--so I can't compare to that. But I do think the numbers are pretty suggestive that it would not be advantageous, although probably not harmful at my recreational (just finish) to 45 year old age group competitor mostly competing with myself kind of aspirations.0 -
The original post:
thoughts on low carb diets?I lose weight easily, but i'm worried about health effects.
What available studies exist on the topic haven't shown any negative health effects.
Of course you need to define what "low carb" means to you in the context of your question, but you've gone silent so naturally the thread is wandering as such things will do.
Uh, I think the original question was answered pretty well and in the absence of follow ups the thread has moved on.
For the record, my original answer:
"I'm with the many who have said that some love it, some don't, and that I don't think there's any reason it would be bad for your health. Or at least not unless you are one of the few who go so far as to cut out veggies."0 -
lauraesh0384 wrote: »Personally, I love low carb and the benefits. I get to lose weight by eating delicious food. I don't experience that carb coma after eating. I have more energy. But the thing with low carb is you have to make it a change in lifestyle. You can't expect to drop x amount of weight and revert back to your old eating habits and not gain weight back. Honestly, I don't really miss bread, rice, pasta, pizza, etc. But even when I'm thinking, "pizza sounds really good right now", there's a low carb option for that. Low carb works, end of story. I went from 240 lbs to my current 175. The hardest part is being around people who eat carbs. You tell them you can't have something because it's high in carbs. "Oh, you're allowed a cheat day". Yes I am, but it's not worth it to throw away a few days of hard work, and then feeling like *kitten* afterwards because you ate a carb loaded meal.
Why do so many people when they speak of carbs only think of rice, pasta, processed white bread and pizza ? There is much more to carbohydrates. When I think of them I usually think of vegetables, fruit, legumes, pulses artesanal bread made from minimally and not chemically processed grains ( with that I think mostly of grain being ground into flour ) and without chemical additives.
Now after reading all of this thread I wonder if people speaking of lower or low carb diets actually all refer to the absence of rice, pasta, processed white bread and pizza, but otherwise eat carbs at the statistically normal rate ?
I don't think only of those things, but those are the things that trigger weight gain for me. I do eat good carbs that come from vegetables, and I very rarely eat fruit. I mostly eat meat, eggs, salads, some vegetables and then the good fats. At this point in time there's no room in my low carb WOE for beans and other complex carbs. I eat under 20 grams of carbs a day. I am one of those people that are more sensitive to carbs than most people. I know what works for me. Once I get to my goal weight then I'll start slowly start adding in more complex carbs, but for weight loss 20g or less works for me and I don't feel deprived.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I agree completely. This isn't a competitive thing. Most people, other than professional athletes and Olympians, run for health, fitness, or because they enjoy it.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.
200km a month is nothing to write home about as a runner. It is not even at a competitive (for a rec runner) level. A lot of the studies on LCHF diets and endurance seem to use a very low V02 max.
Why so negative ?
It adds up to a little more than 6.6 km a day and is a heck of a lot more than most of the world's population runs every day. That it does not fit into the class of a High Performance Athlete does not matter, it is an excellent achievement on it's own. I would be very proud for every km/mile I ran and bet I am not the only one.
FYI, there are some professional athletes on low carb diets. If Lebron James and Ray Allen can compete at the level they do while doing low carb, I think that proves you can do low carb and not have athletic performance suffer.
I don't think it proves that at all, if people are different. It proves that THEY can, and more generally that some can.
That elite athletes so overwhelmingly still fuel with carbs, though, suggests to me that there's probably on average an advantage to doing so. One part of this may just be the total amount of calories needed, but given the likelihood that elite athletes would try any way of eating if it gave them an advantage, I still think the likely conclusion is that carbs usually are superior for this purpose.
It hardly matters, of course, as few of us are elite athletes.
I have found that my own experience running and biking longer distances and training for a half ironman is that my body tends to feel better and crave more carbs when I'm extra active. I've never done full keto, though--I just don't see the point for me--so I can't compare to that. But I do think the numbers are pretty suggestive that it would not be advantageous, although probably not harmful at my recreational (just finish) to 45 year old age group competitor mostly competing with myself kind of aspirations.
The issue comes with people being impatient. A keto-ADAPTED athlete will perform as well or better as a carb-fueled athlete, but most people who try it don't stick with it long enough to find out. They try for a week or two, notice their stamina or strength seem to have dropped, and assume that's how it works without carbs. Reality is, your body needs time to adjust. It takes at least a month, and that's assuming the person never makes a mistake that first month and eats something without realizing it has more carbs than they accounted for (or intentionally tries a cheat day), which starts the timer over again.
In terms of individual preference, whatever anyone chooses. What's irritating is when people who give up after a week or two then take it upon themselves to evangelize that it can't work for anyone, just because they did it wrong.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It hardly matters, of course, as few of us are elite athletes.
That's a very narrow view of things.
You can hardly argue that carbs are the way to go for performance because the elites do it (not all do) and then dismiss what elites do in the very next breath.
Fueling is fueling.
The caloric needs of an elite runner are not that much different than an overweight plodder on the marathon course, on the tri circuit, or on any ultra course.0 -
The issue comes with people being impatient.
This certainly seems borne out by the personal experiences of many active people who adopt a lower carb dietary regimen. Whether it is physiological adaptation or something more neurological at its core, or a combination of both, it certainly felt to me like a process of change when I dropped my carb intake.0 -
In reply to no-one in particular, this article following one athlete before and after a change to a very low carb (keto) diet is interesting.
http://eatingacademy.com/how-a-low-carb-diet-affected-my-athletic-performance0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I agree completely. This isn't a competitive thing. Most people, other than professional athletes and Olympians, run for health, fitness, or because they enjoy it.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.
200km a month is nothing to write home about as a runner. It is not even at a competitive (for a rec runner) level. A lot of the studies on LCHF diets and endurance seem to use a very low V02 max.
Why so negative ?
It adds up to a little more than 6.6 km a day and is a heck of a lot more than most of the world's population runs every day. That it does not fit into the class of a High Performance Athlete does not matter, it is an excellent achievement on it's own. I would be very proud for every km/mile I ran and bet I am not the only one.
FYI, there are some professional athletes on low carb diets. If Lebron James and Ray Allen can compete at the level they do while doing low carb, I think that proves you can do low carb and not have athletic performance suffer.
I don't think it proves that at all, if people are different. It proves that THEY can, and more generally that some can.
That elite athletes so overwhelmingly still fuel with carbs, though, suggests to me that there's probably on average an advantage to doing so. One part of this may just be the total amount of calories needed, but given the likelihood that elite athletes would try any way of eating if it gave them an advantage, I still think the likely conclusion is that carbs usually are superior for this purpose.
It hardly matters, of course, as few of us are elite athletes.
I have found that my own experience running and biking longer distances and training for a half ironman is that my body tends to feel better and crave more carbs when I'm extra active. I've never done full keto, though--I just don't see the point for me--so I can't compare to that. But I do think the numbers are pretty suggestive that it would not be advantageous, although probably not harmful at my recreational (just finish) to 45 year old age group competitor mostly competing with myself kind of aspirations.
The issue comes with people being impatient. A keto-ADAPTED athlete will perform as well or better as a carb-fueled athlete, but most people who try it don't stick with it long enough to find out. They try for a week or two, notice their stamina or strength seem to have dropped, and assume that's how it works without carbs. Reality is, your body needs time to adjust. It takes at least a month, and that's assuming the person never makes a mistake that first month and eats something without realizing it has more carbs than they accounted for (or intentionally tries a cheat day), which starts the timer over again.
In terms of individual preference, whatever anyone chooses. What's irritating is when people who give up after a week or two then take it upon themselves to evangelize that it can't work for anyone, just because they did it wrong.
I don't think the current body of literature supports your claim that a keto adapted athlete performs as well or better than one who isn't. Off the top of my head only Lambert et al showed performance increases, but would love to see what other studies support your claim0 -
The issue comes with people being impatient. A keto-ADAPTED athlete will perform as well or better as a carb-fueled athlete, but most people who try it don't stick with it long enough to find out.
I don't think we know this at all, but it's also why I'm distinguishing between elite performers and the rest of us.
I think elite performers are going to take any advantage that is available (legally, at least), so that they overwhelmingly choose carb-heavy approaches suggests to me that whatever else the carbs probably do offer an advantage to most.
I agree that people obviously perform worse before they are adapted, but if keto was as good or better for actual performance I'd expect to see more using it. It's not like it's a new thing.
It clearly can work for some, though.In terms of individual preference, whatever anyone chooses. What's irritating is when people who give up after a week or two then take it upon themselves to evangelize that it can't work for anyone, just because they did it wrong.
I'm sure that's also irritating. I find the low carb evangelism irritating too, however. I do not find reasonable low carbers (like you) irritating at all, and encourage people interested in trying low carb to do so (and to do so correctly, with advice from people who have been doing it for a while).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It hardly matters, of course, as few of us are elite athletes.
That's a very narrow view of things.
You can hardly argue that carbs are the way to go for performance because the elites do it (not all do) and then dismiss what elites do in the very next breath.
Why? On average I think that to perform your best as an elite athlete fueling with carbs provide a benefit. The Kenyan runners eat something like 80-10-10.
Also certain training regimes work for them.
At my level of performance, a lot of the things that make a difference between them being 1st or 2nd or 10th are simply not going to make a difference for me--they would be majoring in the minors.The caloric needs of an elite runner are not that much different than an overweight plodder on the marathon course, on the tri circuit, or on any ultra course.
Given the difference in training volume, of course they are. Someone training at the level of a Kenyan runner could be eating so much that 10% of calories would not be nearly so low as it would be for me, for example, as a desk worker who trains recreationally.
Also, there are many other things I can do to improve my performance far more than worrying about whether increasing my carb percentage (beyond how it makes me feel) would improve things. These include reducing body fat percentage (so if keto helped someone do that it might be advisable, depending also on where that person is already--personally, not overweight, but also not lean like an elite runner, and don't aspire to be, and seem to be able to lose without doing low carb anyway) and getting in the miles. Training to complete a marathon or half ironman or to meet a personal goal IS quite different from training to win it.0 -
-
The caloric needs of an elite runner are not that much different than an overweight plodder on the marathon course, on the tri circuit, or on any ultra course.
That's not correct, either, unless (again) we are limiting it to low-end performance standards. An "overweight plodder" has fueling/burning/metabolic issues that make it physically impossible to do what the non-overweight non-plodder can do.
The longer the duration of the activity, the more pronounced the differences.0 -
Perhaps my choice of overweight plodder example muddies the issue unnecessarily.
A 150 pound 2H30 marathoner burns through essentially the same calories as a 150 pound 3H30 recreational runner despite a massive difference in speed and reduced time on the course.
Both the elite/faster runner and the slower recreational runner, of the same weight, have a similar basic need for ~2,500 - 3,000 calories of energy to propel them through the course.
0 -
I don't "want it to say" anything as I don't have an agenda, it's simply interesting reading, as is the rest of the blog.
0 -
Perhaps my choice of overweight plodder example muddies the issue unnecessarily.
A 150 pound 2H30 marathoner burns through essentially the same calories as a 150 pound 3H30 recreational runner despite a massive difference in speed and reduced time on the course.
Yes.Both the elite/faster runner and the slower recreational runner, of the same weight, have a similar basic need for ~2,500 - 3,000 calories of energy to propel them through the course.
No.
The fact that they're burning calories at vastly different *rates* matters - a lot - because both access to energy stores and metabolizing intake on the fly happens at rates that are limited.
0 -
No to your no.
In the latest example I gave, muscle and liver glycogen will be the primary fuel source for both runners. Rates differ yes, but that's irrelevant as the stores are the same for both runners.
The 5H00 marathon plodder on the other hand might well be burning a lot of fat along the way.0 -
Given the vast majority of the North American population (and many others) are not high performing or elite athletes, perhaps we could steer this conversation away from the tangential elite and high level athletic performance track the thread has taken and instead look at the benefits and drawbacks of a lower carbohydrate diet for the average Jane and Joe tuning into MFP.0
-
No to your no.
In the latest example I gave, muscle and liver glycogen will be the primary fuel source for both runners. Rates differ yes, but that's irrelevant as the stores are the same for both runners.
The point is that the two combined aren't sufficient to complete the distance. And the stores will not deplete in the same way for both runners, especially if they are refueling along the way. And tertiary fat stores will play significantly different roles for each runner.
Rates matter. There's no getting around it.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I've noticed that with LC also.soonillbehot wrote: »I do low carb diet, but not now, not during exam period.
One thing I notice is it's harder to concentrate.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions