Grains and Carbs
Replies
-
Yeah, some of these peoples, I can't even say which is worse, the getting people not to vaccinate, or implying Autism is worse than any of the diseases prevented by vaccines.PeachyCarol wrote: »My "favorite" Nutritionist even has a PhD, from her 3,000 word "dissertation". https://www.facebook.com/NutritarianNancy
I stopped reading her page when she posted a link that vaccines cause Autism. smh. I couldn't take any more.
Then you missed out on the line about fruits and vegetables being nature's vaccines or something like that.
I'm glad I missed it.
I work with the developmental disability population (mainly Autism) so when I see bunk like that I have a tendency to rage a little.
I rage a lot at that stuff. My four-year-old boy is on the spectrum.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from what Peach posted. Don't see anything there trying to unvalidate anything. See no mention of pizza. Nor do I see a claim of low-carb being weird. Well done.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Strawman arguments are fun for everyone!0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
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.
Your understanding is correct. The application generally, for adherence is adapted for most people to set fats a.d protein as minimums - but that's an adaptation of what IIFYM is. IIFYM came from the bb'ing world and generally they have a target for all macros. For the casual dieter it's just not necessary/preferable to be that rigid.
That's where I fall into it. I'm not nearly advanced (or concerned) enough to be as rigid as a competitive bodybuilder. So I just shoot for my protein and fat goals (and admit that I don't always hit them).
My macro goals definitely don't fall into the low carb category though. I may have a day where that happens but if I hit my goals right I'll get 142g of carbs. If I blow out my protein or fat goals (more likely fat) then I may have a sub-100g carb day...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mantium999 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from what Peach posted. Don't see anything there trying to unvalidate anything. See no mention of pizza. Nor do I see a claim of low-carb being weird. Well done.
Read the post. It says go to the low carb group to find people who agree with you. Here you'll find people that don't. That's a pretty clear "hey, don't post here unless you have only this experience." The pizza was just an example. All I'm saying is the forum category is "General Diet and Weight Loss." That applies to all methods. Someone who had weight loss surgery, did Atkins, did IIFYM, didn't diet but lost weight doing more cardio, etc etc etc.
Or perhaps she just means what she actually typed. Weird concept, I know.
That a lot of people who do low-carb tend to hang out in that group instead of on the main boards, so it would be a better overall resource than the main boards for someone looking for that program.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from what Peach posted. Don't see anything there trying to unvalidate anything. See no mention of pizza. Nor do I see a claim of low-carb being weird. Well done.
Read the post. It says go to the low carb group to find people who agree with you. Here you'll find people that don't. That's a pretty clear "hey, don't post here unless you have only this experience." The pizza was just an example. All I'm saying is the forum category is "General Diet and Weight Loss." That applies to all methods. Someone who had weight loss surgery, did Atkins, did IIFYM, didn't diet but lost weight doing more cardio, etc etc etc.
Assumptive accusations. Got it.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from what Peach posted. Don't see anything there trying to unvalidate anything. See no mention of pizza. Nor do I see a claim of low-carb being weird. Well done.
I admit...I too wondered about the meaning behind the post...I read it 2 or 3 times trying to figure out what she meant. Since I didn't know for sure I just moved on but I do see how some might see it as a message to confine these types of discussions to a group and not on these threads.
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from what Peach posted. Don't see anything there trying to unvalidate anything. See no mention of pizza. Nor do I see a claim of low-carb being weird. Well done.
Read the post. It says go to the low carb group to find people who agree with you. Here you'll find people that don't. That's a pretty clear "hey, don't post here unless you have only this experience." The pizza was just an example. All I'm saying is the forum category is "General Diet and Weight Loss." That applies to all methods. Someone who had weight loss surgery, did Atkins, did IIFYM, didn't diet but lost weight doing more cardio, etc etc etc.
Or perhaps she just means what she actually typed. Weird concept, I know.
That a lot of people who do low-carb tend to hang out in that group instead of on the main boards, so it would be a better overall resource than the main boards for someone looking for that program.
Yup, that's what I meant, alrighty.
0 -
mantium999 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from what Peach posted. Don't see anything there trying to unvalidate anything. See no mention of pizza. Nor do I see a claim of low-carb being weird. Well done.
I admit...I too wondered about the meaning behind the post...I read it 2 or 3 times trying to figure out what she meant. Since I didn't know for sure I just moved on but I do see how some might see it as a message to confine these types of discussions to a group and not on these threads.
Most of the low carbers don't hang out on the main forums. No ill intent. Since she was looking for those with similar experience, I was just pointing her to where she'd find lots of people like her.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from what Peach posted. Don't see anything there trying to unvalidate anything. See no mention of pizza. Nor do I see a claim of low-carb being weird. Well done.
I admit...I too wondered about the meaning behind the post...I read it 2 or 3 times trying to figure out what she meant. Since I didn't know for sure I just moved on but I do see how some might see it as a message to confine these types of discussions to a group and not on these threads.
Most of the low carbers don't hang out on the main forums. No ill intent. Since she was looking for those with similar experience, I was just pointing her to where she'd find lots of people like her.
Yup. If I find people asking questions about stronglifts, I usually refer them to the stronglifts group. Why would you not send someone to a large source of knowledge?
*sigh* MFP...0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »Just go to groups and find the low carb group if you want like-minded people.
This is not a new discussion. If you're looking for people with similar experiences, you'll find them there.
If you're looking for people who don't share you're experience, this is where you'll find them.
Most healthy people don't have insulin resistance issues.
So only one type of weight loss experience story is valid? If you lost weight eating pizza you're a god on earth. If you did it eating lower carb you're somehow some sort of weirdo who should only post in specific places?
Not sure how you came to that conclusion from what Peach posted. Don't see anything there trying to unvalidate anything. See no mention of pizza. Nor do I see a claim of low-carb being weird. Well done.
I admit...I too wondered about the meaning behind the post...I read it 2 or 3 times trying to figure out what she meant. Since I didn't know for sure I just moved on but I do see how some might see it as a message to confine these types of discussions to a group and not on these threads.
Most of the low carbers don't hang out on the main forums. No ill intent. Since she was looking for those with similar experience, I was just pointing her to where she'd find lots of people like her.
I think it is difficult sometimes to know exactly what another poster might mean by their words. It is left to interpretation and often that interpretation is wrong due to the fact that we don't truly know each other. I try...if I am unsure to give the poster the benefit of the doubt.
0 -
So when people say 'you are losing body fat because you are in a calorie-deficit', they are confusing cause and effect. I would phrase it as 'you are in a calorie-deficit because your metabolism is burning body fat'. Reducing the carbs is causing your metabolism to burn body fat and as a result you are less hungry and have more energy (which results in the calorie-deficit).
Good luck.
No sir, I think it is you who is confused.
Your body is always burning fat. All the time. Day in, and day out. I am leaving aside anaerobic efforts here. When your body is in calorie deficit, it breaks down fat from your fat stores. And when you are in surplus, it stores fat in your fat stores. Your body is constantly burning a mixture of fat and glycogen.
Reducing calories and therefore creating a deficit causes you to burn more fat for energy.
I eat hundreds of grams of carbs a day, and I have lost 4 pounds this month...unintentionally, but still. Lots of cars, and sugar. I am not eating very clean. I am creating large deficits through exercise, and am having issues eating enough.
(As an aside, a sugar and a low carb troll in the same day!)
I would say that when your body is in a state of increased lipid synthesis and esterification of fatty acids, it stores fat in your fat stores. When it is in a state of increased lipolysis it breaks down fat from your fat stores. Although these can be quite complex, insulin is a major factor and for many overweight people, reducing insulin via low-carb eating is effective. And the result (not the cause) of this is that they move into a calorie-deficit.
Without looking at your profile, something tells me that you are not 100+ pounds overweight. If you were and were losing 4 pounds a month by eating lots of carbs and sugar and exercising a lot I would find your example more compelling.
You seem to be saying that for people suffering from obesity they simply need to exercise more and eat less and they would be able to eat tons of carbs and sugar like you. This doesn't seem like good advice.
I am currently 303lbs, down from 366lbs in January. Macros are set to 35/35/30 - so my carbs are around 136grams per day. To be honest, I don't really track my macros, just stay under my calories each day. There is always hot chocolate and ice cream on the menu. I'm losing on average around 3lbs per week.
Not knocking low-carb, if that is the vehicle that will get someone to where they need to be, then full power to them. I love my carbs way too much to reduce them beyond where they currently are. But we each need to find what works for us in order to have CI<CO to lose weight.
As for overall health, that really is an individual thing too. My Grandfather always had to watch his carbs being T1 diabetic, my Grandmother never has, and probably eats around 50% carbs - she's doing just fine at 90 years of age.0 -
spirit7125 wrote: »Hi all,
I had been struggling with no weight loss for months, despite hitting it hard at the gym and tracking on MFP..until I cut out bread and most grain-based foods. I don't feel hungry ever, even though I usually eat a lower calorie intake than before and I am losing weight despite eating a higher percentage of fat. Most of my carbs now come from vegetables and berries. I feel less bloaty too...anyone else out there with similar stories? Oh, and I have lost 5# since starting this 3 weeks ago.
Hey OP -- I read page one then skipped all the other pages.
I have had the same experience as you. At first I cut out all grains because I was always getting horrible indigestion and bloating. So I thought I was sensitive to one or more of them and my doctor suggested cutting everything out, eating like that for a week or two, and then adding them back in one by one. But I immediately felt SO MUCH better than I didn't want to add any back. lol
The bloating was gone, the indigestion was gone. Totally gone. I felt like a new person.
Now I've added back in oatmeal, quinoa (which I guess isn't really a grain), and have discovered Ezekiel bread. And apparently Trader Joe's has their own version of Ezekiel but less expensive so I'm going to check that out.
Anyway, I'm never going back to eating all that bread, pasta, cakes, cookies, etc. I might have one piece of toast with my egg in the morning. Maybe some granola in my yogurt. Etc. And I feel great.
0 -
Despite what you may think, that is not correct. Holding calories and protein constant, fat loss isn't significantly different between low carb or higher carb diets, at least in ward trials, save for kekwick and one of the rabst studies and one other that I can't think of off the top of my head.
Where on earth did you come up with the logic for the 3rd paragraph?
Who said to hold calories constant? I'm saying that for many people who restrict carbs, they will burn more body fat which will result in a calorie deficit. For many people who are sensitive to carbs, eating a lot of carbs will cause them to store body fat, which will result in either more eating or decreased energy expenditure (calorie surplus).
How can you look at the efficacy if you do not hold calories constant?
Edited to try to fix messed up quotes.
You can compare weight loss with the deficit measured, you don't have to fix the deficit and fixing intake doesn't fix it in any case.
kg/week lost per kcal/day deficit would be one such statistic, or kcal/day deficit to produce 1 kg/week or whatever of loss.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Fair enough, on the other hand, you don't have to low carb to handle IR, either.
Indeed, but it's a viable approach and works better than energy restriction alone, as does intermittent calorie reduction. Obese men showed double the improvement in 4 weeks.
Too bad your link doesn't support your assertion, which of course isn't surprising.
Of course have no interest in reading it, but for the enlightened Table 5 clearly shows double the reduction in HOMA-IR assessment of insulin resistance in the low carb arm.
The moderate carb arm achieved a N.S reduction of 0.52, the low carb arm a reduction of 1,22 P<0.001
Of course I probably should say there was no improvement in insulin resistance in the MC case, making the LC diet infinitely better in this regard. P for diet was <0.05 for HOMA-IR, insulin and glucose.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Fair enough, on the other hand, you don't have to low carb to handle IR, either.
Indeed, but it's a viable approach and works better than energy restriction alone, as does intermittent calorie reduction. Obese men showed double the improvement in 4 weeks.
Too bad your link doesn't support your assertion, which of course isn't surprising.
Of course have no interest in reading it, but for the enlightened Table 5 clearly shows double the reduction in HOMA-IR assessment of insulin resistance in the low carb arm.
The moderate carb arm achieved a N.S reduction of 0.52, the low carb arm a reduction of 1,22 P<0.001
Of course I probably should say there was no improvement in insulin resistance in the MC case, making the LC diet infinitely better in this regard. P for diet was <0.05 for HOMA-IR, insulin and glucose.
Except I did read your link, and it doesn't support your claim. Your claim, "indeed, but it's (low carb) a viable approach and works better than energy restriction alone" seeing as the study didn't control for calories, you cannot claim the low carb aspect was the reason that group showed greater improvement, and it wasn't the greater energy restriction.
0 -
spirit7125 wrote: »Hi all,
I had been struggling with no weight loss for months, despite hitting it hard at the gym and tracking on MFP..until I cut out bread and most grain-based foods. I don't feel hungry ever, even though I usually eat a lower calorie intake than before and I am losing weight despite eating a higher percentage of fat. Most of my carbs now come from vegetables and berries. I feel less bloaty too...anyone else out there with similar stories? Oh, and I have lost 5# since starting this 3 weeks ago.
OP- yes I have experienced this and feel confident the weight won't creep back on easily this time. Good for you for finding and succeeding at what works for you.0 -
Except I did read your link, and it doesn't support your claim. Your claim, "indeed, but it's (low carb) a viable approach and works better than energy restriction alone" seeing as the study didn't control for calories, you cannot claim the low carb aspect was the reason that group showed greater improvement, and it wasn't the greater energy restriction.
Well I can't see an energy difference from baseline of 4.65 MJ having no effect on IR and one of 5.35 MJ having the significant effect of a 45% reduction. Ditto no reduction in glucose and insulin at the lower deficit high carbohydrate case.
The reduced carbohydrate logically reduces glucose and insulin levels which contribute to insulin resistance. Would anyone propose that adding 20g of fat to the low carb diet would have eliminated these effects ? Mechanism ?
In any case this was a crossover study where the same people were given two different diets and one achieved a reduction in insulin resistance and the other did not. Whether the subjects ate a bit less on one or the other is an outcome as much as any other, so I stand by my statement that the low carb diet was much better than medium carb at reducing insulin resistance in this study. The latter failed.
Diet A - low carb - reduced insulin resistance, lower energy intake, less hunger.
Diet B - no reduction in insulin resistance.
In the Author's peer reviewed words "Conclusion: In the short term, high-protein, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets reduce hunger and lower food intake significantly more than do high-protein, medium-carbohydrate nonketogenic diets."0 -
Except I did read your link, and it doesn't support your claim. Your claim, "indeed, but it's (low carb) a viable approach and works better than energy restriction alone" seeing as the study didn't control for calories, you cannot claim the low carb aspect was the reason that group showed greater improvement, and it wasn't the greater energy restriction.
Well I can't see an energy difference from baseline of 4.65 MJ having no effect on IR and one of 5.35 MJ having the significant effect of a 45% reduction. Ditto no reduction in glucose and insulin at the lower deficit high carbohydrate case.
The reduced carbohydrate logically reduces glucose and insulin levels which contribute to insulin resistance. Would anyone propose that adding 20g of fat to the low carb diet would have eliminated these effects ? Mechanism ?
In any case this was a crossover study where the same people were given two different diets and one achieved a reduction in insulin resistance and the other did not. Whether the subjects ate a bit less on one or the other is an outcome as much as any other, so I stand by my statement that the low carb diet was much better than medium carb at reducing insulin resistance in this study. The latter failed.
Diet A - low carb - reduced insulin resistance, lower energy intake, less hunger.
Diet B - no reduction in insulin resistance.
In the Author's peer reviewed words "Conclusion: In the short term, high-protein, low-carbohydrate ketogenic diets reduce hunger and lower food intake significantly more than do high-protein, medium-carbohydrate nonketogenic diets."
Except your statement was thst LC works better than energy restriction alone, not that it was better than MC at reducing IR and from the study you posted you cannot conclude that from the data provided.
This isn't terribly hard to understand, you are drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data. Just because you don't see the difference in energy restriction as having a significant effect, it doesn't mean that it didn't, you can't tell from the study you posted.
The authors conclusion also does not support you claim.0 -
This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.0 -
This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
Lol nusi. Can you tell me why well controlled overfeeding trials are being discounted?0 -
This upcoming study may shed some light on some of the topics included here.
http://nusi.org/science-in-progress/energy-balance-consortium/
ENERGY BALANCE CONSORTIUM
This highly controlled laboratory study will help determine whether it’s the total amount of calories you eat or the proportion of fat and carbohydrate in the diet that most importantly drives body weight gain.
Current research and public health policy on obesity is based on the belief that it is caused by an imbalance between energy consumed (the calories we eat) and expended (the calories we excrete and burn). By this thinking, the interaction between diet and body fat is determined by the total amount of calories in the foods consumed, while the macronutrient content of these foods (the proportion and type of carbohydrates, fats, and protein) has no meaningful effect. In short, when it comes to fat accumulation, a “calorie-is-a-calorie,” regardless of its source. An alternative hypothesis is that dietary macronutrients influence body fat through their effect on the hormones that regulate the uptake, retention and mobilization of fat by fat cells, and the use of fat by other cells for fuel. This study will be the well-controlled test of these competing hypotheses to date.
I won't hold my breath ….0 -
Despite what you may think, that is not correct. Holding calories and protein constant, fat loss isn't significantly different between low carb or higher carb diets, at least in ward trials, save for kekwick and one of the rabst studies and one other that I can't think of off the top of my head.
Where on earth did you come up with the logic for the 3rd paragraph?
Who said to hold calories constant? I'm saying that for many people who restrict carbs, they will burn more body fat which will result in a calorie deficit. For many people who are sensitive to carbs, eating a lot of carbs will cause them to store body fat, which will result in either more eating or decreased energy expenditure (calorie surplus).
How can you look at the efficacy if you do not hold calories constant?
Edited to try to fix messed up quotes.
You can compare weight loss with the deficit measured, you don't have to fix the deficit and fixing intake doesn't fix it in any case.
kg/week lost per kcal/day deficit would be one such statistic, or kcal/day deficit to produce 1 kg/week or whatever of loss.
In theory, I do not disagree - (but that is not what the poster was implying..at least from my interpretation of his disjointed posts). Could you clarify what you mean by 'fixing intake doesn't fix it in any case"? I get the concept you are using - sort of reverse engineer into the number - but that part confused me.0 -
Except your statement was thst LC works better than energy restriction alone, not that it was better than MC at reducing IR and from the study you posted you cannot conclude that from the data provided.
This isn't terribly hard to understand, you are drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data. Just because you don't see the difference in energy restriction as having a significant effect, it doesn't mean that it didn't, you can't tell from the study you posted.
In the study the restricted carbohydrate diet reduced insulin resistance and the other diet with a similar but slightly higher energy intake did not reduce insulin resistance.
The restricted carbohydrate diet was served on different colour plates and had different foods in it.
I can't tell from the study if the colour of the plates or the specific foods were responsible for the reduction in insulin, glucose and insulin resistance in the LC case.
Biochemistry 101 suggests that a reduced carbohydrate intake will lead to a reduced blood sugar level, which in turn will reduce insulin levels and so on. Or it could be the colour of the plates, the types of food or a small energy difference.
It appears the authors anticipated this sort of derp and ran a smaller isocaloric trial, for the benefit of those who believe the only variable in human metabolism and biochemistry is a unit of energy. The smaller group again did a crossover between two diets with 2000 kcal/day of intake. Once again they couldn't help but undereat on the low carb diet by 66 calories so the blew the experiment up. But again on the LC diet they achieved a statistically significant reduction in glucose and insulin and a 63% reduction in insulin resistance on the low carb arm, but not on the higher carb. Obviously the 66 calories they didn't eat caused this whole effect.
0 -
In theory, I do not disagree - (but that is not what the poster was implying..at least from my interpretation of his disjointed posts). Could you clarify what you mean by 'fixing intake doesn't fix it in any case"? I get the concept you are using - sort of reverse engineer into the number - but that part confused me.
You can't "fix a deficit" easily, if at all. You can fix an input but if the system responds with a change in output the deficit will be different to what you intended.
I don't think I've seen a study that controlled a deficit, most measure maintenance intake or expenditure at the outset and set a target deficit from that.
0 -
In theory, I do not disagree - (but that is not what the poster was implying..at least from my interpretation of his disjointed posts). Could you clarify what you mean by 'fixing intake doesn't fix it in any case"? I get the concept you are using - sort of reverse engineer into the number - but that part confused me.
You can't "fix a deficit" easily, if at all. You can fix an input but if the system responds with a change in output the deficit will be different to what you intended.
I don't think I've seen a study that controlled a deficit, most measure maintenance intake or expenditure at the outset and set a target deficit from that.
OK - I get your comment now - got confused with the context of the word 'fix'. However, is that not making the argument that in order to test the efficacy of a specific macro mix diet, calories would need to be held constant?0 -
OK - I get your comment now - got confused with the context of the word 'fix'. However, is that not making the argument that in order to test the efficacy of a specific macro mix diet, calories would need to be held constant?
Depends what you're testing. If you want to know the best macro mix to choose at a constant calorie intake you would do that, assuming you have a controlled environment to lock up your subjects. They would all have different deficits though at the start and these would drift with time.
The above would be ideal for a shed full of farm animals to find the most cost effective fattening ration, or to establish a scientific principle . For free living humans you might prefer something involving choice and self regulation to reflect the real world they're living and eating in.
0 -
Except your statement was thst LC works better than energy restriction alone, not that it was better than MC at reducing IR and from the study you posted you cannot conclude that from the data provided.
This isn't terribly hard to understand, you are drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data. Just because you don't see the difference in energy restriction as having a significant effect, it doesn't mean that it didn't, you can't tell from the study you posted.
In the study the restricted carbohydrate diet reduced insulin resistance and the other diet with a similar but slightly higher energy intake did not reduce insulin resistance.
The restricted carbohydrate diet was served on different colour plates and had different foods in it.
I can't tell from the study if the colour of the plates or the specific foods were responsible for the reduction in insulin, glucose and insulin resistance in the LC case.
Biochemistry 101 suggests that a reduced carbohydrate intake will lead to a reduced blood sugar level, which in turn will reduce insulin levels and so on. Or it could be the colour of the plates, the types of food or a small energy difference.
It appears the authors anticipated this sort of derp and ran a smaller isocaloric trial, for the benefit of those who believe the only variable in human metabolism and biochemistry is a unit of energy. The smaller group again did a crossover between two diets with 2000 kcal/day of intake. Once again they couldn't help but undereat on the low carb diet by 66 calories so the blew the experiment up. But again on the LC diet they achieved a statistically significant reduction in glucose and insulin and a 63% reduction in insulin resistance on the low carb arm, but not on the higher carb. Obviously the 66 calories they didn't eat caused this whole effect.
You just quoted the authors who said energy intake was significantly lower with the low carb group, now you're saying the LC intake was similar. Was it similar or significantly different?
How much did the difference in energy intake contribute to the result?
That is the point that seems to be going over your head. I don't even nesscarily disagree with your statement, and I've seen studies that would support it, however the one you posted, does not support your claim. Not sure why you continue to argue the point that it does.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