Grains and Carbs
Replies
-
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
CICO is the only way to lose weight; no matter what kind of "diet" one follows… high carb, low carb, high protein, moderate protein, low fat, high fat, Mediterranean, Paleo, Keto, blah blah blah.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
CICO is the only way to lose weight; no matter what kind of "diet" one follows… high carb, low carb, high protein, moderate protein, low fat, high fat, Mediterranean, Paleo, Keto, blah blah blah.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
You do restrict carbs to a number. A true IIFYM has a target for all macros - not minimums on fats and protein - that is just used for ease of adherence.0 -
It can't be IIFYM if there aren't enough carbs to eat a pop tart. That's mandatory.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
CICO is the only way to lose weight; no matter what kind of "diet" one follows… high carb, low carb, high protein, moderate protein, low fat, high fat, Mediterranean, Paleo, Keto, blah blah blah.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Its that low carb = IIFYM. The,macros are just different than people not low carbing. IIFYM does not prescribe what the Ms are.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
CICO is the only way to lose weight; no matter what kind of "diet" one follows… high carb, low carb, high protein, moderate protein, low fat, high fat, Mediterranean, Paleo, Keto, blah blah blah.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
well ...
fat and proteins are minimums in IIFYM and then you fill the rest in with carbs and/or as you see fit.
the main difference in my mind is that with low carb you are restricting them to a set minimum that you should not exceed; where as, with IIFYM there is no maximum, unless of course you go over your calories...
0 -
I guess I've misunderstood IIFYM all this time, then. I thought it meant, "if it fits your macros." If your macros are 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat and that's what you eat, it fits your macros.DeguelloTex wrote: »
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
CICO is the only way to lose weight; no matter what kind of "diet" one follows… high carb, low carb, high protein, moderate protein, low fat, high fat, Mediterranean, Paleo, Keto, blah blah blah.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
well ...
fat and proteins are minimums in IIFYM and then you fill the rest in with carbs and/or as you see fit.
the main difference in my mind is that with low carb you are restricting them to a set minimum that you should not exceed; where as, with IIFYM there is no maximum, unless of course you go over your calories...
It sounds like you're saying that there is some framework for what macros are allowed to fit, which is never the impression I got. But, again, I could have been misunderstanding it all this time.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
CICO is the only way to lose weight; no matter what kind of "diet" one follows… high carb, low carb, high protein, moderate protein, low fat, high fat, Mediterranean, Paleo, Keto, blah blah blah.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
well ...
fat and proteins are minimums in IIFYM and then you fill the rest in with carbs and/or as you see fit.
the main difference in my mind is that with low carb you are restricting them to a set minimum that you should not exceed; where as, with IIFYM there is no maximum, unless of course you go over your calories...
That's not really correct in the true sense of IIFYM0 -
It can't be IIFYM if there aren't enough carbs to eat a pop tart. That's mandatory.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
CICO is the only way to lose weight; no matter what kind of "diet" one follows… high carb, low carb, high protein, moderate protein, low fat, high fat, Mediterranean, Paleo, Keto, blah blah blah.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Its that low carb = IIFYM. The,macros are just different than people not low carbing. IIFYM does not prescribe what the Ms are.
And ice cream!!!0 -
Hi everyone, I appreciate that the discussion is staying mostly on track, but I am going to ask that references to various "groups" of users or their behavior, even in the most general terms, please exit stage left. Talking about misconceptions or confusion regarding different diets is fine, but the mod team has already had to hand out a ridiculous number of warnings and bannings this week, and well,
We'd really prefer not to have to keep doing it. If you do have a concern, please PM a mod or staff member.
While @kgeyser might not like handing out bans, my ban hammer is out and readily awaiting, so ease stay on topic.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
You lost me. Aren't you restricting all of your macros to below a set number in IIFYM? Or are you saying that the set number for carbs is so arbitrary that it isn't IIFYM anymore?lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sarasmaintaining wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Before this becomes a fight on carbs, here's a link to the group. OP, if you really are looking for like-minded folks, this is where you'll find them:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
What I don't understand is why it always has to turn in to a fight. I don't low-carb but if someone else wants to...that's up to them.
I have a tendency to overeat carbs at the detriment of protein and fat so I try to moderate them. I aim for 100-125 grams of carbs. This as much as anything has helped me meet my goals.
I'm typing this from my phone with the voice software, so there's going to be a few grammatical errors here.
I think there are a few factors that I see happening typically on the main forms.
I hate to use labels but for purposes of explanation I will use pro low-carb and anti-low-carb.
Someone comes on the forums and ask a question about carbs or talks about going low-carb. Which first of all as an ambiguous term that does not have a well-defined number.
Then without any context at all, an anti-low-carber will show up and say "Why would you do low-carb, it's all about calories you shouldn't do low-carb"
Then, the pro low-carbers show up and start saying things about low-carb dieting that are just not true.
Then a bunch of arguing happens that gets further and further away from actually helping the original poster.
Two big issues as I see it: carbs and sugar are sort of a whipping boy of the diet industry currently. So unfortunately there are many people who believe that carbs are inherently fattening due to the diet industry and largely due to Taubes (who imo is wrong).
So then people are quick to bash the idea of low-carb dieting when the reality is it can be very effective for some people in some situations largely for satiety and adherence purposes.
I do think it's important to dispel some of the rumors about carbs being fattening so that people don't go on with the misunderstanding which could lead them to an overly restrictive diet.
But often times because people neglect that context, they end up not helping the op and a fight ensues.
This is certainly compounded by the fact that we are on a calorie counting website. And while calories are fundamentally responsible for changes in weight (yes, CICO is correct), that doesn't mean that every dieting method must involve tracking calories contrary to the group think that goes on in the forms.
Calories are responsible for driving changes in weight. Calories in also influences calories out. Energy deficits are mandatory for causing fat loss.
It's up to the individual to find a sustainable method for adhering to that energy deficit. Low carb dieting is one method that may work for some people but it's primarily the hunger blunting properties and the reduction or removal of an entire macronutrient that facilitate the energy imbalance, and thats not the mechanism proposed by some of the LCers.
The forum fighting happens because of poor context and misinformation from both sides of the carb fence.
Finally, I'm not referring to "all" people despite the language above.
Solid post, agree with everything you said. At the end of the day weight loss does come down to those pesky calories/following an appropriate calorie deficit. But there's different ways to approach that, and if eating lower carbs helps someone then I say good for them, for finding what works for them. Heck, I did alternate day intermittent fasting, which is way wackier than low carbing
I do think the frustration is that there are a few people who advocate low carbing as the 'only' way to make progress though. Same with some of the 'clean' eaters, some 'paleo' followers etc etc. And these people are typically the most vocal, which then raises the hackles of others and around and around we go
I agree with all of this as well. I also believe there are a few, typically vocal, posters who believe that IIFYM/CICO is the only way to go, and reply to every request for advice on something specific regarding HOW to do low carb with a "WHY are you doing it" type response, getting the hackles of others up, and around and around we go.
I don't know how this community will ever get past it.
Are you still doing IF?
CICO is the only way to lose weight; no matter what kind of "diet" one follows… high carb, low carb, high protein, moderate protein, low fat, high fat, Mediterranean, Paleo, Keto, blah blah blah.
I didn't disagree with any of that.
IIFYM is too, technically. Since low carb is also IIFYM. My point: there are many ways to do this. Low carb is a VALID way as well. It should be respected along side traditional calorie counting, and IIFYM "flexible" dieting.
I'm out, gotta work.
I am curious as to how IIFYM = low carb....?
Set calories at 1950 and macros at 125 g protein, 25 g carbs, 150 g fat. Then fit your macros.
Not appealing to me (I don't think I could eat 150 g fat if I tried and I'd miss my carbs), but perfectly valid approach.
It might get confused by the net carb thing somehow--I'm sure there's nuance to it that one would figure out.
I would only dispute that by saying you are not restricting carbs to below a set number in IIFYM, which would seem to be the main difference..
unless, of course, I am looking at it incorrectly.
well ...
fat and proteins are minimums in IIFYM and then you fill the rest in with carbs and/or as you see fit.
the main difference in my mind is that with low carb you are restricting them to a set minimum that you should not exceed; where as, with IIFYM there is no maximum, unless of course you go over your calories...
That's not really correct in the true sense of IIFYM
really? what is the correct version then?
I don't really do IIFYM but I always assumed that was the correct application ...0 -
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.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.
I could have it wrong..I don't follow IIFYM per say ...
the main difference in my mind is that you don't restrict your carbs in IIFYM and you do in LC....again, I could be wrong but that is my impression.0 -
You can fit ice cream and pop tarts in low carb, if your staying under 50g a day, even more if your under 100g a day. Keto, no, unless you are making your own keto friendly ice cream.0
-
Back to the OP, while it was slightly discussed, getting a food scale can be very eye opening. It is very easy to under estimate calories. In fact the average person under reports calories as much as 400 ish calories and over estimates calories burned through exercise.
For the average person on MFP, they typically fail at accurately logging and consistently logging. Ao while reducing carba is an effective strategy, i would also address the basics first.0 -
Heck, your average trained dietitian fails at accurate and consistent logging.Back to the OP, while it was slightly discussed, getting a food scale can be very eye opening. It is very easy to under estimate calories. In fact the average person under reports calories as much as 400 ish calories and over estimates calories burned through exercise.
For the average person on MFP, they typically fail at accurately logging and consistently logging. Ao while reducing carba is an effective strategy, i would also address the basics first.
0 -
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.
Cosigned. The frequent misguided attachment of CICO to IIFYM is also at the heart of many arguments in the forum. They are mutually exclusive, with CICO being the root of success for all chosen diets.0 -
Heck, your average trained dietitian fails at accurate and consistent logging.Back to the OP, while it was slightly discussed, getting a food scale can be very eye opening. It is very easy to under estimate calories. In fact the average person under reports calories as much as 400 ish calories and over estimates calories burned through exercise.
For the average person on MFP, they typically fail at accurately logging and consistently logging. Ao while reducing carba is an effective strategy, i would also address the basics first.
Very true. Its just human nature to want to believe we do everything right.0 -
crazyjerseygirl wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »robertwilkens wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »No, that's... really not how science works. I explained the process to you in the laymen's terms by which I understand it. There are actual scientists on this board who can help you out here. I need caffeine, help me out real science nerds!!!
Even a basic high school level knowledge of the scientific method knows that "100%" doesn't happen.
Read the wiki on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Pretend i studied a science and have a 4-year degree (bachelor of science)
I believe the word science means 'knowledge' or 'the study of knowledge' from memory (whereas engineering was the "practical application of science")..... I was once a trained scientist working as an engineer (really, about 20 years ago) If something's not true 100% of the time, it's not really knowledge, it's more like "it seems likely".
Statistics inform science, but they don't define it. That is if something is statistically significant, it can give you a place to look to better define a problem (For example, is it true for a particular studied subgroup 100% of the time, what about that subgroup is different-- then restudy with similar subgroup and see if it's true 100% of time with them).
-Rob
@senecarr @crazyjerseygirl ... ??????
I've not read this, nor do I care to, but here's one of the best infographics I've seen explain science.
What a great graphic!0 -
.0
-
Heck, your average trained dietitian fails at accurate and consistent logging.Back to the OP, while it was slightly discussed, getting a food scale can be very eye opening. It is very easy to under estimate calories. In fact the average person under reports calories as much as 400 ish calories and over estimates calories burned through exercise.
For the average person on MFP, they typically fail at accurately logging and consistently logging. Ao while reducing carba is an effective strategy, i would also address the basics first.
based on what people post in here as to what dieticians are telling them to do, I would avoid all dieticians like the plague....0 -
Heck, your average trained dietitian fails at accurate and consistent logging.Back to the OP, while it was slightly discussed, getting a food scale can be very eye opening. It is very easy to under estimate calories. In fact the average person under reports calories as much as 400 ish calories and over estimates calories burned through exercise.
For the average person on MFP, they typically fail at accurately logging and consistently logging. Ao while reducing carba is an effective strategy, i would also address the basics first.
based on what people post in here as to what dieticians are telling them to do, I would avoid all dieticians like the plague....
I don't think half of the people who say they are seeing a registered dietitian actually are. I think they are seeing a nutritionist based on the BS they spew
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions