Grains and Carbs
Options
Replies
-
I agree that there likely is a psychological preference for sweet things because it does hit the pleasure center of the brain of many people. That is not the same as a physical addiction where the body NEEDS the substance.
I took some psych classes in college (it was my minor), and from what i remember what you are describing is "dependence" which is different than "addiction". They can be related but dependence is not addiction, dependence is a physical thing where- for example your body gets used to having x amount off caffeine in the body, and when you withdraw you have problems so you have to have the caffeine just to be stable like you were before you started it. "addiction" is more psychological (mental process). A quick "yahoo" agrees with my previous learning http://www.diffen.com/difference/Addiction_vs_Dependence0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »
I have to admit, i added those comments on purpose because i didn't want to have to convince *you* something i'm not 100% convinced of myself....
What i know for me is..
-Sugar has calories
-Soda has sugar hence soda has calories
-Switching from Soda to Filtered Water was not an easy switch.
-Eventually i preferred water (though, must be cold)
-Now soda almost tastes horrible.
I also no longer like "Sweet" foods like i used to, again like soda they now taste almost like poison to me.
I've seen a lot of information, on radio, in tv, in magazines, and in books that says, yes, sugar is addictive... But, of course, if you don't believe it it must not be true.
-rob
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »
I have to admit, i added those comments on purpose because i didn't want to have to convince *you* something i'm not 100% convinced of myself....
What i know for me is..
-Sugar has calories
-Soda has sugar hence soda has calories
-Switching from Soda to Filtered Water was not an easy switch.
-Eventually i preferred water (though, must be cold)
-Now soda almost tastes horrible.
I also no longer like "Sweet" foods like i used to, again like soda they now taste almost like poison to me.
I've seen a lot of information, on radio, in tv, in magazines, and in books that says, yes, sugar is addictive... But, of course, if you don't believe it it must not be true.
-rob
Radio, tv, magazines, and popular books aren't scientific research, though. They often rush out to promote preliminary research as fact. Science bases conclusions on a preponderance of findings gleaned from extensive research, and frankly, the research into food addiction of any kind is in its infancy.
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »I agree that there likely is a psychological preference for sweet things because it does hit the pleasure center of the brain of many people. That is not the same as a physical addiction where the body NEEDS the substance.
I took some psych classes in college (it was my minor), and from what i remember what you are describing is "dependence" which is different than "addiction". They can be related but dependence is not addiction, dependence is a physical thing where- for example your body gets used to having x amount off caffeine in the body, and when you withdraw you have problems so you have to have the caffeine just to be stable like you were before you started it. "addiction" is more psychological (mental process). A quick "yahoo" agrees with my previous learning http://www.diffen.com/difference/Addiction_vs_Dependence
you have derailed this thread enough, so this is going to be my last response.
Just because you googled and yahoo searched something does not make it true. I can run a search for "aliens living among us" and I will get plenty of "papers" stating that is a fact.
If you want to start a sugar thread and post your google and yahoo results then by all means do; however, I would recommend that you actually find some peer reviewed sources to back up your claims.
the end.0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »>Wait, you think sugar is addictive and you still eat it???
>And for the record sugar is not addictive so your entire premise is wrong....
I did a quick google (which, surprisingly, i did on yahoo) and the first result (because i hate digging deep) seems to say sugar is addictive with some amount of science backing it....
http://blog.fooducate.com/2012/03/15/food-and-the-brain-is-sugar-addictive/
I tend to trust search engine ranking algorithms...
SMH
x2 * I read it and I am seriously sitting here shaking my head*
It is truly a gift when someone unknowingly admits to being intellectually lazy0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Radio, tv, magazines, and popular books aren't scientific research, though. They often rush out to promote preliminary research as fact. Science bases conclusions on a preponderance of findings gleaned from extensive research, and frankly, the research into food addiction of any kind is in its infancy.
Much 'scientific' research is based on statistics, which to me isn't science it's guesswork...... If something were true science it would be true 100% of the time, not a statistically significant portion of the time. But that's just me.
Ok, I'll end my position on this topic by saying i'd rather lose more weight than you (I probably have a lot more weight to lose than you) so i'll continue eating less calories (sugar as an example) and if you eat more calories then that's fine with me....
-Rob0 -
-
Back to the original post,
Improving the satiety of your diet is a great idea. While I don't think most people should entirely eliminate enjoyable foods from their diet, if you're better satiated by replacing energy dense foods with other foods you enjoy that are higher in satiety, and it causes you to be able to stick to your diet long term, then have at it.
So for example when people say "great now you're in a calorie deficit, it's all about the calories" they are right in the sense that it's the energy deficit causing the weight loss and in theory you could eat all the bread you want and still lose weight if you're able to maintain a calorie deficit by doing that. But the key word here is "if".
Too late!
I haven't eliminated any food group from my diet but I have certainly had to restrict certain foods. They were foods that for whatever reason I just couldn't seem eat a reasonable amount of and stay in a calorie deficit. Most of those foods just happened to be carbs.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Radio, tv, magazines, and popular books aren't scientific research, though. They often rush out to promote preliminary research as fact. Science bases conclusions on a preponderance of findings gleaned from extensive research, and frankly, the research into food addiction of any kind is in its infancy.
Much 'scientific' research is based on statistics, which to me isn't science it's guesswork...... If something were true science it would be true 100% of the time, not a statistically significant portion of the time. But that's just me.
Ok, I'll end my position on this topic by saying i'd rather lose more weight than you (I probably have a lot more weight to lose than you) so i'll continue eating less calories (sugar as an example) and if you eat more calories then that's fine with me....
-Rob
No, that's... really not how science works. I explained the process to you in the laymen's terms by which I understand it. There are actual scientists on this board who can help you out here. I need caffeine, help me out real science nerds!!!
Even a basic high school level knowledge of the scientific method knows that "100%" doesn't happen.
Read the wiki on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
0 -
Insulin causes fat to be stored rather than used for energy. Starches raise your insulin. Here are a couple of quotes from wikipedia on the effects of insulin:
Increased lipid synthesis – insulin forces fat cells to take in blood lipids, which are converted to triglycerides; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
Increased esterification of fatty acids – forces adipose tissue to make fats (i.e., triglycerides) from fatty acid esters; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
Decreased proteolysis – decreasing the breakdown of protein
Decreased lipolysis – forces reduction in conversion of fat cell lipid stores into blood fatty acids; lack of insulin causes the reverse.
First, Wikipedia is not a reputable source of information.
Second, only individuals with metabolic conditions use insulin inefficiently.
In a healthy person, insulin is of no concern and does more good for their body than harm.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »No, that's... really not how science works. I explained the process to you in the laymen's terms by which I understand it. There are actual scientists on this board who can help you out here. I need caffeine, help me out real science nerds!!!
Even a basic high school level knowledge of the scientific method knows that "100%" doesn't happen.
Read the wiki on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Pretend i studied a science and have a 4-year degree (bachelor of science)
I believe the word science means 'knowledge' or 'the study of knowledge' from memory (whereas engineering was the "practical application of science")..... I was once a trained scientist working as an engineer (really, about 20 years ago) If something's not true 100% of the time, it's not really knowledge, it's more like "it seems likely".
Statistics inform science, but they don't define it. That is if something is statistically significant, it can give you a place to look to better define a problem (For example, is it true for a particular studied subgroup 100% of the time, what about that subgroup is different-- then restudy with similar subgroup and see if it's true 100% of time with them).
-Rob0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go 0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »So when people say 'you are losing body fat because you are in a calorie-deficit', they are confusing cause and effect. I would phrase it as 'you are in a calorie-deficit because your metabolism is burning body fat'. Reducing the carbs is causing your metabolism to burn body fat and as a result you are less hungry and have more energy (which results in the calorie-deficit).
Mind-boggling in its wrongness.
From what i understand, the advantage of low-carb diets is that you reduce *sugar* intake. It's pretty well understood at this point that sugar is an addictive substance-- Have some and you'll want more (have none over a longer period, and you won't crave it anymore). If you eat sugar, you'll eat more calories because you'll desire more (sugar-based) foods (as snacks, etc), which will affect your calorie deficit.
I still eat sugar myself, but not as much. I've definitely cut way back on cola for example, though -- having it at most once a week.
Carbs, from what i remember 20+ years ago reading, are the bodies source of energy. You don't want to get rid of them.
Sugar is not addictive!0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
CICO is the only way to lose weight; no matter what kind of "diet" one follows… high carb, low carb, high protein, moderate protein, low fat, high fat, Mediterranean, Paleo, Keto, blah blah blah.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
LOL Yes...you have described exactly what happens except for one thing...a moderator shows up and closes down the thread or...the OP disappears in a state of confusion never to be seen again.
There are extremists on both sides of the debate...both sides have some valid points. Those valid points often go unnoticed because of all the "noise" around them.
I am trying to move away from calorie counting and logging before I get to maintenance. I am finding that it is much easier when I reduce calorie dense foods (not eliminate...just reduce). Some high carb foods sadly fall in that category. I am not sure that I will ever be able to moderate pasta and potatoes...I will always have to weigh them!
0 -
Coming from someone who eats low carb and low sugar, I do not believe there is any sound scientific evidence that sugar is addictive.
I love sweets and some days I want them more than others, but I believe that to be an emotional or hormonal response, not an addictive or dependent response. Like how on a stressful day I want a beer or a hot fudge sundae. I suspect that a lot of overeating and cravings are caused by emotional bonds between an individual and those foods.
My SO is far from overweight (5' 10" 148 lbs, you'd be hard pressed to find a spot of fat on him) I logged his foods for one day for him to see how much he was eating so he would know how much he needed to gain weight. Before lunch he had nearly 200g of carbs and almost 100g of sugar, I eat usually under 50g of carbs and under 20g of sugar a day. I'm overweight (though getting better), he is not.
I find eating lower carb foods fill me up on smaller quantities and subsequently lower calories, it helps me create a caloric deficit and my digestive system seems to approve of it as well. I can and have lost weight eating three to four times the carbs I am now. It wasn't any easier or any harder for me to do that time than it is this time. While I agree everyone's bodies work a little bit differently, there is no reason to think that eating at a deficit will not result in a weight loss regardless of the foods it includes.
Speaking of CICO as if it is the opposite of low carb is inaccurate. CICO is the mathematical equation that sums up a bazillion different factors to aid in weigh loss. If you are eating less calories than you are burning you will lose weight, if you are eating more than you are burning you will gain weight.
I've found that eating low carb has given me more energy to be more active which increases my CO therefore I can lose weight even though I have a higher CI than I did previously. Because previously I sat on the couch most of the day since I was too tired to do anything else. If one wasn't tracking and logging all their foods and activities accurately at a higher weight, before trying to lose weight, there is no way to know what your energy balance was at that time. You may feel you are eating more now, and you well may be, but if you are losing fat you are also now burning more than you were previously.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
Playing the devils advocate here, there also seems to be a lot of context missing from the 'eat less calories' posts. Many people, including me, have carbs as the variable as fats and protein are generally considered minimums - when I reduce calories, I reduce carbs. In short, reducing carbs is often an effective way of creating a deficit. The other point is that the OP is not even what I would consider low carb - they are set at 30%.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
Agree, there's a few IIFYMers/strict CICO followers who are also pretty narrow focused as well, and don't take into consideration other factors that may be an issue for someone else. I think we ALL project our own experiences on these forums, and I know that for me personally, I need to remind myself from time to time that not everyone is me
And yes, I'm still doing IF
I did alternate day IF for my weight loss phase, I did 5:2IF during the transition period between active weight loss and maintenance, and I currently do 16:8IF as part of my maintenance plan. I'm not super strict about it and there are days where I eat outside of my eating window (especially on the weekends), but I love doing IF and will probably do it in some form for the rest of my life. 0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 939 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions