Grains and Carbs
Replies
-
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
Stealing this...
0 -
Ok, what the heck is the larger context I'm replying to anyway? Anyone got the elevator pitch version?
OP eliminated bread and grains - created a deficit and has an easier time of adhering.
Bunch of people said - why don't you just reduce calories/you created a deficit (which the OP already acknowledged.
Some people said good on you for finding something that works for you
Someone came in with...but insulinz
Seems like someone came in with some randomness which I cannot even follow (hence you being tagged).
SideSteel did his usual.
Typical MFP thread really.
Ah, "but for me, it was Tuesday" on MFP.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
OK, that name doesn't go with that avatar. No wonder my day is all askew.PeachyCarol wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
To be fair, some of us do respect it as a valid choice for people who have a sound approach, just like any other choice.
I always respect logic, balance, and reason.
Pseudo-science and sloganeering? Notsomuch. And I do get it, it's really hard to get away from, because the diet industry is built around it. It's very hard to wade through nonsense.
LOL. I changed my name just to confuse everyone. Still a peachy name. Just wanted it to fit on the screen. There's apparently another mamapeach on MFP now.
0 -
Though sadly, philosophically, even if we get to "the truth" in the form of the circle, we can't necessarily say that means we've actually discovered the underlying truth of the universe for the phenomenon.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
<snip giant cool infographic>0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
OK, that name doesn't go with that avatar. No wonder my day is all askew.PeachyCarol wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
To be fair, some of us do respect it as a valid choice for people who have a sound approach, just like any other choice.
I always respect logic, balance, and reason.
Pseudo-science and sloganeering? Notsomuch. And I do get it, it's really hard to get away from, because the diet industry is built around it. It's very hard to wade through nonsense.
LOL. I changed my name just to confuse everyone. Still a peachy name. Just wanted it to fit on the screen. There's apparently another mamapeach on MFP now.
A wannabe, I'm certain.
0 -
Though sadly, philosophically, even if we get to "the truth" in the form of the circle, we can't necessarily say that means we've actually discovered the underlying truth of the universe for the phenomenon.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
<snip giant cool infographic>
I don't do philosophy, I do science. Toddles!0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »
Though sadly, philosophically, even if we get to "the truth" in the form of the circle, we can't necessarily say that means we've actually discovered the underlying truth of the universe for the phenomenon.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
<snip giant cool infographic>
I don't do philosophy, I do science. Toddles!
I don't philosophy too deep, so I mostly shrug my shoulders about it and say, good enough explanation for me.0 -
Though sadly, philosophically, even if we get to "the truth" in the form of the circle, we can't necessarily say that means we've actually discovered the underlying truth of the universe for the phenomenon.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
<snip giant cool infographic>
What, dude, you're not objectively omniscient and all?
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »
Though sadly, philosophically, even if we get to "the truth" in the form of the circle, we can't necessarily say that means we've actually discovered the underlying truth of the universe for the phenomenon.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
<snip giant cool infographic>
What, dude, you're not objectively omniscient and all?
If I was, I'd think I'd know it, but maybe not?0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »
Though sadly, philosophically, even if we get to "the truth" in the form of the circle, we can't necessarily say that means we've actually discovered the underlying truth of the universe for the phenomenon.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
<snip giant cool infographic>
I don't do philosophy, I do science. Toddles!
I don't philosophy too deep, so I mostly shrug my shoulders about it and say, good enough explanation for me.
I science pretty deep, and I do think that my experiments bring humanity just a bit closer to reality. "Good enough" just stops you asking questions!0 -
robertwilkens wrote: »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 think this is quite sensible. I quit sugary soda at age 16 (before I ever drank much soda, since back in the day it wasn't as common as now) and have never been sorry.
On the other hand, I have to admit that I'm quite pleased that high quality chocolate and homemade pie and gelato do not taste 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.
These aren't generally reputable sources. It's currently a trend in the dieting industry (especially among certain corners of it) to claim that sugar is "addictive." It's today's thing, much like "FAT made you FAT" in the '90s. I think lots of people are told that perfectly normal human reactions to eating palatable foods (wanting to eat more) are a sign of addiction, and because they are ADDICTS they ignore much more rational and common-sense based strategies to dealing with their particular temptations, whether it be actual emotional eating (which is a bit more complicated) or just dealing with food being available 24/7 and particular habit-based behaviors.
As I referenced above, I think, one of the funniest examples I've seen are posters claiming that chips must be addictive because if you start eating out of the bag you will overeat. That's not a reason to decide you are an addict. That's a reason why we shouldn't eat stuff out of the bag, but should set out a serving size. (I'm sure even that doesn't apply to everyone, but it sure does to me.) If I eat family style for dinner I will eat more than if I serve out correct servings for myself in advance, but that doesn't mean I'm addicted to my typical dinner.0 -
I guess I'm not clear, it is deeper than that. Like you could "finish" science, but science couldn't, of itself, prove that the final, complete, modal was the actuality of reality.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »
Though sadly, philosophically, even if we get to "the truth" in the form of the circle, we can't necessarily say that means we've actually discovered the underlying truth of the universe for the phenomenon.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
<snip giant cool infographic>
I don't do philosophy, I do science. Toddles!
I don't philosophy too deep, so I mostly shrug my shoulders about it and say, good enough explanation for me.
I science pretty deep, and I do think that my experiments bring humanity just a bit closer to reality. "Good enough" just stops you asking questions!
Imagine you were in The Matrix, and you had no one telling you were. You discovered Theory of Everything (TOE™, patent pending), but in The Matrix. How could you show that it was TOE and you weren't modeling just modeling what you think is reality?
So Solipsism arguments are one flavor of the problem. Stuff that people use various underground substances and think what they feel are profound thoughts about, or so I've heard.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
Absolutely this (and what SideSteel said as well).0 -
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?0 -
I think there's a pretty strong argument that that is reality for someone who lived in the Matrix.
I guess I'm not clear, it is deeper than that. Like you could "finish" science, but science couldn't, of itself, prove that the final, complete, modal was the actuality of reality.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »
Though sadly, philosophically, even if we get to "the truth" in the form of the circle, we can't necessarily say that means we've actually discovered the underlying truth of the universe for the phenomenon.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
<snip giant cool infographic>
I don't do philosophy, I do science. Toddles!
I don't philosophy too deep, so I mostly shrug my shoulders about it and say, good enough explanation for me.
I science pretty deep, and I do think that my experiments bring humanity just a bit closer to reality. "Good enough" just stops you asking questions!
Imagine you were in The Matrix, and you had no one telling you were. You discovered Theory of Everything (TOE™, patent pending), but in The Matrix. How could you show that it was TOE and you weren't modeling just modeling what you think is reality?
So Solipsism arguments are one flavor of the problem. Stuff that people use various underground substances and think what they feel are profound thoughts about, or so I've heard.
I believe there was that French guy who wrote that you could only extend what you truly knew to a relatively small degree. Once you get past "Cogito ergo sum," you're on thin ice from the Evil Genius, or the Matrix, or whatever. It's just a limitation with which we must deal in one way or another.
0 -
I guess I'm not clear, it is deeper than that. Like you could "finish" science, but science couldn't, of itself, prove that the final, complete, modal was the actuality of reality.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »crazyjerseygirl wrote: »
Though sadly, philosophically, even if we get to "the truth" in the form of the circle, we can't necessarily say that means we've actually discovered the underlying truth of the universe for the phenomenon.crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »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).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
<snip giant cool infographic>
I don't do philosophy, I do science. Toddles!
I don't philosophy too deep, so I mostly shrug my shoulders about it and say, good enough explanation for me.
I science pretty deep, and I do think that my experiments bring humanity just a bit closer to reality. "Good enough" just stops you asking questions!
Imagine you were in The Matrix, and you had no one telling you were. You discovered Theory of Everything (TOE™, patent pending), but in The Matrix. How could you show that it was TOE and you weren't modeling just modeling what you think is reality?
So Solipsism arguments are one flavor of the problem. Stuff that people use various underground substances and think what they feel are profound thoughts about, or so I've heard.
Again, I don't philosophy, but science starts with a set of assumptions like "I'm inhabiting reality" and "fairies aren't screwing with my results"
It could very well be that I think I'm making medicine, but in reality I'm simply delivering leprechaun magic to diseased areas. Perhaps the FSM is touching my thermocycler with his noodly appendage right now, making sure I get the results he wants.
But I MUST employ occams Razor to this. There has never been ANY evidence of fairies, FSMs or poorly engineered matrices, so assuming them is foolish, and paralyzing.
All that said I can say that scientific inquiry will bring me closer to the truth than any other method out there, and so yes, I can safely assume that I have gotten as close to reality as possible.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
I kind of get where the poster is coming from. When someone is eating low carb their carb macro is going to be relatively low, so they are looking for foods that fit their macros- I hope I explained that right.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Its that low carb = IIFYM. The,macros are just different than people not low carbing. IIFYM does not prescribe what the Ms are.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.0 -
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
You do restrict carbs to a number. A true IIFYM has a target for all macros - not minimums on fats and protein - that is just used for ease of adherence.0 -
It can't be IIFYM if there aren't enough carbs to eat a pop tart. That's mandatory.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Its that low carb = IIFYM. The,macros are just different than people not low carbing. IIFYM does not prescribe what the Ms are.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
well ...
fat and proteins are minimums in IIFYM and then you fill the rest in with carbs and/or as you see fit.
the main difference in my mind is that with low carb you are restricting them to a set minimum that you should not exceed; where as, with IIFYM there is no maximum, unless of course you go over your calories...
0 -
I guess I've misunderstood IIFYM all this time, then. I thought it meant, "if it fits your macros." If your macros are 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat and that's what you eat, it fits your macros.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
well ...
fat and proteins are minimums in IIFYM and then you fill the rest in with carbs and/or as you see fit.
the main difference in my mind is that with low carb you are restricting them to a set minimum that you should not exceed; where as, with IIFYM there is no maximum, unless of course you go over your calories...
It sounds like you're saying that there is some framework for what macros are allowed to fit, which is never the impression I got. But, again, I could have been misunderstanding it all this time.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
well ...
fat and proteins are minimums in IIFYM and then you fill the rest in with carbs and/or as you see fit.
the main difference in my mind is that with low carb you are restricting them to a set minimum that you should not exceed; where as, with IIFYM there is no maximum, unless of course you go over your calories...
That's not really correct in the true sense of IIFYM0 -
It can't be IIFYM if there aren't enough carbs to eat a pop tart. That's mandatory.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Its that low carb = IIFYM. The,macros are just different than people not low carbing. IIFYM does not prescribe what the Ms are.
And ice cream!!!0 -
Hi everyone, I appreciate that the discussion is staying mostly on track, but I am going to ask that references to various "groups" of users or their behavior, even in the most general terms, please exit stage left. Talking about misconceptions or confusion regarding different diets is fine, but the mod team has already had to hand out a ridiculous number of warnings and bannings this week, and well,
We'd really prefer not to have to keep doing it. If you do have a concern, please PM a mod or staff member.
While @kgeyser might not like handing out bans, my ban hammer is out and readily awaiting, so ease stay on topic.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
well ...
fat and proteins are minimums in IIFYM and then you fill the rest in with carbs and/or as you see fit.
the main difference in my mind is that with low carb you are restricting them to a set minimum that you should not exceed; where as, with IIFYM there is no maximum, unless of course you go over your calories...
That's not really correct in the true sense of IIFYM
really? what is the correct version then?
I don't really do IIFYM but I always assumed that was the correct application ...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
- 427 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