Grains and Carbs
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
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 ... ??????
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
I know what you meant to say, but for clarity sake, CICO has to be obeyed regardless of the diet. Whether or not you actually think about or track those calories (which is what I think you may mean with the above) is a different argument.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
I know what you meant to say, but for clarity sake, CICO has to be obeyed regardless of the diet. Whether or not you actually think about or track those calories (which is what I think you may mean with the above) is a different argument.
Yes, agreed. I was multi tasking, and didn't say that clearly. I made the same mistake today that Stef made yesterday. (and that I gave her a bit of grief for) smh. Apologies.
YES I mean tracking calories, calorie counting, etc.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
That sums it up nicely. So far this thread seems to be mostly staying on track, and I think that if we can have more open discussions like this a lot of people will benefit from the facts0 -
-
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?
I know what you meant to say, but for clarity sake, CICO has to be obeyed regardless of the diet. Whether or not you actually think about or track those calories (which is what I think you may mean with the above) is a different argument.
I think this is the one point that gets lost in the shuffle so often with the 'special interest' groups here. Eat whatever the heck you do or don't want, but unless that type of eating style also puts you in a caloric deficit, you won't lose weight. Complex strategies aside, it really *is* that simple.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
This post should be saved and just pasted into every future LC "debate".
0 -
Do you consider meteorology a science?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
0 -
So it has come to this, I'm getting flagged when someone needs a philosophical explanation of science.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 ... ??????
Yes, technically, the literal root word definition of science is knowledge / knowing.
Philosophically, any number of people can argue if scientific fact represents knowledge, and I'm inclined to dismiss most of them as I haven't seen other systems be as productive, or are too inapplicable to be worth a practical use to me. Essentially science is the system of generating new knowledge / facts / truth values in a repeatable and reliable way, including using existing facts to build theories that make predictions and suggest areas for further study.
Science, by the form of its epistemology, does concede that it never proves anything, only that it can either disprove something or say that this holds true to the best of current fact. Generally speaking, I'd say things sciences says are proven while still saying they aren't 100% unassailable are proven, not just "seems likely". That seems like trying to using muddying language to try to discredit science.
I'd more or less agree on statistics. They don't define science, but you generally need to them if you want to assert your findings rise above mere chance.0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
Playing the devils advocate here, there also seems to be a lot of context missing from the 'eat less calories' posts. Many people, including me, have carbs as the variable as fats and protein are generally considered minimums - when I reduce calories, I reduce carbs. In short, reducing carbs is often an effective way of creating a deficit. The other point is that the OP is not even what I would consider low carb - they are set at 30%.
Another vegetarian with the carbs as her variable. My proteins and fats are my satiety. It's funny, my carbs are 35%, just a bit more than the OP, and I don't consider myself a low carber. Certainly lower than SAD, and I guess if I bothered with calculating net carbs, they'd be rather low-ish (80? 90? grams or lower, depending on if I'm eating beans that day).
It's the Carol plan, you know? I don't want lists of food I eliminate for the sake of adhering to anything but my own goals, and if I ascribed to a certain way of eating, I'd be taking foods off a list. I simply don't eat food I don't like now.
0 -
Ok, what the heck is the larger context I'm replying to anyway? Anyone got the elevator pitch version?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.
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
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.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »Do you consider meteorology a science?
This is getting more and more off topic (this particular sub part of the thread) which i'm partially to blame for...
Meteorology I "think" is a science, but I know they do not have enough data collection points to be 100% accurate, and probably never will (until they can completely simulate the earth in a computer system, which is more in line with my training). I mean if you're talking about weather forecasts, don't they say things like a butterfly flapping its wings in new york can lead to a tornado and flooding in Texas?
-Rob0 -
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.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
is there any other way than CICO to lose weight? If there is I must have missed it...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.0 -
Similarly, much "science" is done based on probabilities and statistical significance rather with the relatively limited number of cases in which the complete state of the system and all variables can be known with sufficient accuracy. "Science" is more than dropping stuff in a vacuum to see how quickly it falls.robertwilkens wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »Do you consider meteorology a science?
This is getting more and more off topic (this particular sub part of the thread) which i'm partially to blame for...
Meteorology I "think" is a science, but I know they do not have enough data collection points to be 100% accurate, and probably never will (until they can completely simulate the earth in a computer system, which is more in line with my training). I mean if you're talking about weather forecasts, don't they say things like a butterfly flapping its wings in new york can lead to a tornado and flooding in Texas?
-Rob
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions