'Diet' advice needed - overwhelmed by low carb/sugar/LCHF/carb cycling etc
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
jthompson693 wrote: »Carbohydrates are not "bad" this is unsubstantiated. There are simple sugars (table sugar, in sweets etc) and there are complex carbohydrates (rice, bread, potates). You should avoid simple sugars. Eating simple sugars raises your insulin levels sharply and causes fat storage. Complex carbohydrates on the other hand are an essential macro nutrition that should constitute 60% of your total.calories. digestion of complex carbohydraes occurs slowly and releases insulin slowly. why are carbohydrates important? Because gluocse derived from carbs is the primary source of energy for your body, and the prefered source for your brain. A severely low carbohydrate diet will cause health problems including mental problems, nutrirnt deficiencies and possibly ketosis which is dangerous. Much of the weight loss that is experienced on a low carb diet is water loss because when we store carbohydrates in our liver and muscle, water is stored along with it. When your carbohydrate intake is not sufficient your energy levels drop and metabolism drops. This will negatively impact your workouts because you will have less glycogen stored in your muscle. Exercise is the best way to lose weight when combined with a healthy diet. Any overly restrictice diet like very low carbohydrate diets are not sustainable and can feed into a weight loss-weight gain cycle. Sustained weight loss requires a resetting of your metabolism at a higher level, not resetting your metaoblism at a lower level due to temporary starvation. Carbohydrates are not "fattening." For every gram of carbohydrate you consume yields 4kcal. In contrast for every gram of fat or alcohol you consume you get 7kcal. So fats and alcohol are the most fattening and according to food guide fats should only constitute 15 percent of your ttoal kcal. Carbohydrates become fattening when people consume larger amounts of simple sugar, which unfortunately is very typical in the western diet. Excessive amounts of protein can also be converted to fat, and the typical american consumes more protein then needed. So drinking a protein drink when you are not a super athlete doesn't make any more sense than consuming a low carb diet. The problem is all the misinformation out there. If you really want to know how to be healthy take a nutrition class, hire a nutritionist (registered) or I can help
Exercise only helps increase or create a caloric deficit, the deficit itself is the most important impact. Excessive calories make you fat, regardless of source. If you are over your calorie needs, it doesn't matter the type of carbs. Fats are 9 Calories per gram, alcohol 7. Not sure of your source for 15% of calories coming from fat. I doubt most Americans consume too many protein calories per se, they consume too many total calories. What are your qualifications in linking yourself t a registered nutritionist, since some of your guidance so far is questionable?0 -
jthompson693 wrote: »Carbohydrates are not "bad" this is unsubstantiated. There are simple sugars (table sugar, in sweets etc) and there are complex carbohydrates (rice, bread, potates). You should avoid simple sugars. Eating simple sugars raises your insulin levels sharply and causes fat storage. Complex carbohydrates on the other hand are an essential macro nutrition that should constitute 60% of your total.calories. digestion of complex carbohydraes occurs slowly and releases insulin slowly. why are carbohydrates important? Because gluocse derived from carbs is the primary source of energy for your body, and the prefered source for your brain. A severely low carbohydrate diet will cause health problems including mental problems, nutrirnt deficiencies and possibly ketosis which is dangerous. Much of the weight loss that is experienced on a low carb diet is water loss because when we store carbohydrates in our liver and muscle, water is stored along with it. When your carbohydrate intake is not sufficient your energy levels drop and metabolism drops. This will negatively impact your workouts because you will have less glycogen stored in your muscle. Exercise is the best way to lose weight when combined with a healthy diet. Any overly restrictice diet like very low carbohydrate diets are not sustainable and can feed into a weight loss-weight gain cycle. Sustained weight loss requires a resetting of your metabolism at a higher level, not resetting your metaoblism at a lower level due to temporary starvation. Carbohydrates are not "fattening." For every gram of carbohydrate you consume yields 4kcal. In contrast for every gram of fat or alcohol you consume you get 7kcal. So fats and alcohol are the most fattening and according to food guide fats should only constitute 15 percent of your ttoal kcal. Carbohydrates become fattening when people consume larger amounts of simple sugar, which unfortunately is very typical in the western diet. Excessive amounts of protein can also be converted to fat, and the typical american consumes more protein then needed. So drinking a protein drink when you are not a super athlete doesn't make any more sense than consuming a low carb diet. The problem is all the misinformation out there. If you really want to know how to be healthy take a nutrition class, hire a nutritionist (registered) or I can help
This myth needs to be tackled on these forums for once and for all with science. I am so deathly tired of seeing it. I'm going to try to explain this with the simple understanding I have of the process.
Carbohydrates are the body's preferred source of immediate energy. We eat something, it is broken down, and digested. We store fat. Our body functions, does something and calls on its energy reserves (its fat stores) and burns fat. This is a constant back and forth process throughout the day.
Saying that sugar causes fat storage? True. Is it a concern? NO. Because we're only concerned if there's a storage of EXCESS or creation of NEW fat cells. The fact is that the storage of NEW fat, converted from carbohydrates? Is extremely rare. The other fact.....
Excess fat is only stored in a caloric surplus.
One more fact? Complex carbs will be stored as fat too and used for energy and will be stored as excess fat if eaten in a caloric surplus. Just like any other macronutrient.
0 -
jthompson693 wrote: »You should avoid simple sugars. Eating simple sugars raises your insulin levels sharply and causes fat storage.
Simple vs. complex has to do with the molecule and isn't particularly relevant to nutrition and mostly just confuses people (fruits are a simple carb). As for the rest of your claims about sugar and fat gain, I refer to my lengthy post upthread.Complex carbohydrates on the other hand are an essential macro nutrition that should constitute 60% of your total.calories.
Why 60%? There's a wide range of carb percentage that can work for people depending on their individual bodies and preferences. I like doing 40% now, and did about 30% when I was less active, and a number of people do well on a low carb plan, whereas still others do well with higher carbs.Much of the weight loss that is experienced on a low carb diet is water loss
No. The quick initial loss often relates to this (as well as the apparent gain when you go off it), but beyond that it's CICO like everything else. Some people just find lowering their carbs (or going all the way to a low carb plan) to be an effective strategy for them to lower calories.according to food guide fats should only constitute 15 percent of your ttoal kcal.
This is not current advice.
For example, from Walter Willett at the Harvard Nutrition site:
Do I need to watch my percentage of calories from fat?
Willett: No. When you cook or read nutrition labels, don’t fixate on fat percentages. As long as you use healthy fats, and your keep your portion sizes modest, it doesn’t matter if your dish or meal has 30 percent, 40 percent, or more of its calories from fat. The same is true for your overall diet: Don’t worry about the percentage of calories from fat. Focus on choosing foods with healthy fats.Carbohydrates become fattening when people consume larger amounts of simple sugar, which unfortunately is very typical in the western diet.
No, your diet is fattening if you consume more calories than you burn. That's more likely to happen for most if they eat lots of sweets (not some or any sweets), because for many people sweets aren't that filling or their palatability outweighs the natural brakes the body otherwise might put on consumption. The thing to do is realize that and so eat a particular amount instead of however much you might want to or otherwise limit consumption in a way that is effective for you.Excessive amounts of protein can also be converted to fat, and the typical american consumes more protein then needed.
Again, excessive CALORIES will become fat. So don't eat too much.0 -
Granted, I'm not good with anything other than pounds or inches ... But I looked it up on Scooby and 9.4 stone is equal to 131 pounds. Your profile says you want to lose another 28 pounds? Right at underweight for BMI.
Please be open to re-evaluating your goal weight as you progress. Because the goal is to be healthy, right? Please take care of yourself and make sure you give your body all the nutrition it needs!
0 -
"reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e74920 -
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
"Most weight loss occurs because of decreased caloric intake.
However, evidence shows the only way to maintain weight loss is to be engaged in regular physical activity."
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/physical_activity/index.html
Someone already posted sexypants... here are other useful posts.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10012907/logging-accuracy-consistency-and-youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819925/the-basics-dont-complicate-it/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/872212/youre-probably-eating-more-than-you-think/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/833026/important-posts-to-read/p1
Goal setting, including weight, calories, and macros
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MKEgal/view/2014-06-08-setting-goals-667045
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
For the ones it works for, it might. I don't eat low carb, I don't have cravings, and I'm pretty good at weight loss.DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
As usual, if eating something -- whether carbs in general, sugar, ice cream, cheese enchiladas, or whatever -- is problematic for you, you might want to reduce or eliminate it. That doesn't make it universally problematic.
0 -
From from the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, explaining the healthy macro ranges:jthompson wrote:Complex carbohydrates on the other hand are an essential macro nutrition (sic) that should constitute
60% of your total calories... according to food guide fats should only constitute 15 percent of your ttoal kcal.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/1/1/T1.expansion.html
carbs, 45 - 65% of calories (4 cal per gram)
fat, 20 - 35% of calories (9 cal per gram)
protein, 10 - 35% of calories (4 cal per gram)0 -
This content has been removed.
-
At .8 kg, even if statistically significant, what is the possibility it just reflects someone having a cue for mindful eating? I wonder what their studies would show if they controlled for protein intake across the studies. Increases in protein, outside of diary, are generally going to follow less eating of sugary food."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e74920 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
For the ones it works for, it might. I don't eat low carb, I don't have cravings, and I'm pretty good at weight loss.DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
As usual, if eating something -- whether carbs in general, sugar, ice cream, cheese enchiladas, or whatever -- is problematic for you, you might want to reduce or eliminate it. That doesn't make it universally problematic.
True on both counts. Willpower can overcome hunger, at least in the short term. And genes play a huge role in how we respond to excess carb intake. It's a big factor for a lot of people, but not everyone.
Higher carb intake MAY lead to higher serum triglycerides for just about everyone, though. I'm only aware of one dose-response study, and all subjects had metabolic syndrome, so it's still an unknown.
Also, the mechanisms for the hunger effects aren't well known either, but the levels of ghrelin (a hunger hormone) seem to drop with restricted carb intake.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
So if someone's issue isn't hunger or they don't find that low carb makes a difference, then no need to do it.
I happen to think it works well for a certain percentage of the population (no prediction as to how large that percentage is) and people with IR are more likely to be among that percentage. But this does not mean that it's a better approach for everyone, or even most people.
I also noticed when I lowered my carbs a lot (without going low carb) that I was eating WAY less for a while since I hadn't yet learned how to increase my other foods to compensate and because I was in that super motivated period at the beginning of a weight loss plan that some of us get where we are fine on low calories. Once I got used to it, I got more relaxed about adding in larger servings of protein and more fat, and so my calories went back up (although not too high, since I was counting them). Based on this experience and my own preferences (which are protein and fat oriented, and not starch oriented), I suspect that going low carb would only have a short-term effect on my overall calorie consumption.
The studies I've seen that show greater losses on low carb initially and then a more equal effect over time (and issues with compliance) suggest to me that this is not uncommon.
Again, that doesn't mean low carb isn't a great choice for some people, but it's hardly one size fits all.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
So if someone's issue isn't hunger or they don't find that low carb makes a difference, then no need to do it.
Right, but if somebody is trying to lose weight, that means they're probably overweight, so it's worth asking how that weight was gained if not due to hunger or cravings.I happen to think it works well for a certain percentage of the population (no prediction as to how large that percentage is) and people with IR are more likely to be among that percentage. But this does not mean that it's a better approach for everyone, or even most people.
Yeah, the predictions I've seen are around 1/4 to 1/3 of the population, but who knows -- those are perhaps only the people who are now showing symptoms.The studies I've seen that show greater losses on low carb initially and then a more equal effect over time (and issues with compliance) suggest to me that this is not uncommon.
Compliance is the key IMHO. That's why I'm still low-carb after reaching maintenance weight. I don't want to start down that slippery slope again.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
So if someone's issue isn't hunger or they don't find that low carb makes a difference, then no need to do it.
Right, but if somebody is trying to lose weight, that means they're probably overweight, so it's worth asking how that weight was gained if not due to hunger or cravings.
For lots of us it had nothing to do with hunger or cravings.
For me it was (1) emotional eating, and (2) carelessness plus no strong sense of hunger or fullness. The latter is really helpful in losing weight, but means I have to be mindful about how much I eat, especially when I let myself eat more calorie dense things (including high fat foods approved by low carb plans--I used to overeat cheese quite commonly).
Even now my hunger, such as it is, tends to be psychological/habitual, so I do well with higher volume (lots of veggies), not allowing myself to eat at all times of the day, but only at mealtimes or a planned snack, and forcing myself to be conscious of the fact that when I want to eat at other times it is almost always due to stress or wanting to procrastinate or simply thinking something would taste good, and so I can wait until my next planned meal.0 -
@lemurcat12 -- good insights. It's not just about hunger or carbs. MFP helps a lot with mindfulness. Just restricting anything -- calories or carbs -- will help with that aspect. I just find that low-carb makes it almost effortless for me. I don't even track intake anymore.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
For some people.
What you said is a generalization. Overeating is a complex issue and appetite regulation isn't a finely tuned mechanism.
I don't think people who have emotional issues with food tend to respond well to hunger cues, for example. That certainly wasn't the case with me. There's also something called hedonic hunger, which exists separate from true hunger.
Low carbing does nothing to address this, particularly when you like things to graze on like nuts and cheese or cold chicken.
0 -
The polarized sides of MFP just love to fight.
I don't know any low carb people personally, that I work with or go to the gym with, that say calories don't matter.
Likewise, I don't know any person that eats to a calorie count that eats only cake and doughnuts
I would say to ignore forum extremes and find a good normal mixed diet with fruits, veggies, lean meat, dairy if you tolerate it, and get some proressivey challenging exercise in.
Two basic truths:
Fat is backup fuel. You gotta run out of regular fuel, food, in order to burn back up fuel. Eat less than you need. Or calorie deficit as the cool kids say.
You can't put exercise your fork.
Good luck on your journey!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
So if someone's issue isn't hunger or they don't find that low carb makes a difference, then no need to do it.
Right, but if somebody is trying to lose weight, that means they're probably overweight, so it's worth asking how that weight was gained if not due to hunger or cravings.
For lots of us it had nothing to do with hunger or cravings.
For me it was (1) emotional eating, and (2) carelessness plus no strong sense of hunger or fullness. The latter is really helpful in losing weight, but means I have to be mindful about how much I eat, especially when I let myself eat more calorie dense things (including high fat foods approved by low carb plans--I used to overeat cheese quite commonly).
Even now my hunger, such as it is, tends to be psychological/habitual, so I do well with higher volume (lots of veggies), not allowing myself to eat at all times of the day, but only at mealtimes or a planned snack, and forcing myself to be conscious of the fact that when I want to eat at other times it is almost always due to stress or wanting to procrastinate or simply thinking something would taste good, and so I can wait until my next planned meal.
This is me as well, except that I'm not totally a volume eater. I have to sacrifice some to get enough fat and protein, because they are the key to keeping me truly full.
I'm not really convinced that my hunger signals will ever, truly work properly. I do well with working with the numbers and knowing what my body needs, though... that will have to be good enough.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Low carbing does nothing to address this, particularly when you like things to graze on like nuts and cheese or cold chicken.
There's a thread in the low-carb group titled "What's your Kryptonite?" Nuts are an issue for a lot of low-carbers.
Interestingly, there was a study of almonds that found that people who snacked on almonds tended to eat less later. Total caloric input was reduced! It was sponsored by the California Almond Growers.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
For some people.
What you said is a generalization. Overeating is a complex issue and appetite regulation isn't a finely tuned mechanism.
I don't think people who have emotional issues with food tend to respond well to hunger cues, for example. That certainly wasn't the case with me. There's also something called hedonic hunger, which exists separate from true hunger.
Low carbing does nothing to address this, particularly when you like things to graze on like nuts and cheese or cold chicken.
Mmm, nuts and cheese and cold chicken would make me very happy.
I was taken out by a client to Capital Grille earlier this week (lucky me) and managed to get three meals out of it. My meal consisted of New York strip and creamed spinach, and green beans with tomatoes. Other than the latter, which might be too carby, that all seems pretty low carb friendly, and yet had I freely and with abandon eaten my whole meal in one sitting (which I likely could have done) it would have been some huge number of calories, even without also finishing it off with a cheese plate (and I do love cheese). (I did not have a cheese plate, though--we had plenty of food as it was.)
Not saying this makes low carb a bad strategy for many, again, but for me I suspect I could easily find the pitfalls.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
For some people.
What you said is a generalization. Overeating is a complex issue and appetite regulation isn't a finely tuned mechanism.
I don't think people who have emotional issues with food tend to respond well to hunger cues, for example. That certainly wasn't the case with me. There's also something called hedonic hunger, which exists separate from true hunger.
Low carbing does nothing to address this, particularly when you like things to graze on like nuts and cheese or cold chicken.
Mmm, nuts and cheese and cold chicken would make me very happy.
I was taken out by a client to Capital Grille earlier this week (lucky me) and managed to get three meals out of it. My meal consisted of New York strip and creamed spinach, and green beans with tomatoes. Other than the latter, which might be too carby, that all seems pretty low carb friendly, and yet had I freely and with abandon eaten my whole meal in one sitting (which I likely could have done) it would have been some huge number of calories, even without also finishing it off with a cheese plate (and I do love cheese). (I did not have a cheese plate, though--we had plenty of food as it was.)
Not saying this makes low carb a bad strategy for many, again, but for me I suspect I could easily find the pitfalls.
Capital Grille, I'm jelly.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
No.
What that excerpt means is that intake is all self-reported. And we know from decades of studies that self-reporting food intake is hopelessly inaccurate.
We also know most low carbers end up eating themselves into weight gain.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
"In trials of adults with ad libitum diets (that is, with no strict control of food intake)...", then comes the bit you quoted."reducing free sugars in the diet has a small but significant effect on body weight in adults - an average reduction of 0.8 kg. Increasing sugar intake was associated with a corresponding 0.75 kg increase in body weight.
This parallel effect, they suggest, seems be due to an altered energy intake, since replacing sugars with other carbohydrates did not result in any change in body weight."
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e7492
Bingo! Low-carb diets work by lowering ad lib feeding. It's all about hunger and cravings. Well, and triglycerides, and insulin resistance, and other things too. But for weight loss, low-carb works by reducing hunger.
For some people.
What you said is a generalization. Overeating is a complex issue and appetite regulation isn't a finely tuned mechanism.
I don't think people who have emotional issues with food tend to respond well to hunger cues, for example. That certainly wasn't the case with me. There's also something called hedonic hunger, which exists separate from true hunger.
Low carbing does nothing to address this, particularly when you like things to graze on like nuts and cheese or cold chicken.
Mmm, nuts and cheese and cold chicken would make me very happy.
I was taken out by a client to Capital Grille earlier this week (lucky me) and managed to get three meals out of it. My meal consisted of New York strip and creamed spinach, and green beans with tomatoes. Other than the latter, which might be too carby, that all seems pretty low carb friendly, and yet had I freely and with abandon eaten my whole meal in one sitting (which I likely could have done) it would have been some huge number of calories, even without also finishing it off with a cheese plate (and I do love cheese). (I did not have a cheese plate, though--we had plenty of food as it was.)
Not saying this makes low carb a bad strategy for many, again, but for me I suspect I could easily find the pitfalls.
Capital Grille, I'm jelly.
I got the worst runs ever from a steak at CG.
Scarred for life...never again.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions