'Diet' advice needed - overwhelmed by low carb/sugar/LCHF/carb cycling etc
Options
Replies
-
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.
Do you have any peer reviewed data to support that claim? Of course in a way that would show this gaining back of weight is any different than low calorie diet.
Most diets fail.
Saying most low car diets fail really says nothing that can't be said of all diets.
0 -
professionalHobbyist 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.
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.
Do you have any peer reviewed data to support that claim? Of course in a way that would show this gaining back of weight is any different than low calorie diet.
I didn't say it was different from other diets. I said - and have always said - it is no better than any other diet.Most diets fail. Saying most low car diets fail really says nothing that can't be said of all diets.
Yep.
0 -
The best diet is the one that works for you, so I'd never argue that low-carb is a better weight-loss diet.
However, many studies have found that people eat less on an all-you-can-eat low-carb diet vs an all-you-can-eat low-fat diet. In fact, many studies that compare low-carb to low-fat will let the low-carb subjects eat ad lib while the low-fat subjects are calorie restricted.
Not all the mechanisms are well understood. The higher satiety of protein (which tends to be higher when carbs are lower) is one that just about everybody accepts. Same with the higher TEF associated with protein.
The effects of ketones (which you make in increasing quantities as carb intake drops below about 200g) are less well-known, but seem to be important for a few reasons, including the effect on ghrelin levels I mentioned earlier.
Many people seem to have a compliance issue with low-carb diets. Personally, I tried it 10 years ago and eventually fell off the low-carb wagon.
Now that I have a better understanding of how LC works and how to mitigate the side-effects some people experience, I don't think I'll have much of a compliance issue. I don't miss carb-laden goodies.
If you go on a low-carb diet and suffer through fatigue, constipation, etc., you won't stay compliant very long. If you read a good book first (e.g., The Art and Science of Low Carb), you'll learn how to avoid those pitfalls.0 -
MamaBirdBoss wrote: »You're totally fine with eating 1200 cal and not eating back reasonable amounts of exercise at your height and weight.
Normal, healthy women store fat on thighs, butts, and tummies most heavily. You're a normal, healthy woman. You don't need any kind of special diet. Different diets won't chance fat deposit locations.
Ignore anyone who wants you to not track calories. Do what actually works.
What? No. Unless she's under 5' tall, she needs to eat more than that, ALONG with eating back a significant portion of her execise calories.
0 -
I tried so many things like cutting carbs etc I ended up craving them then binging so yes I'm all about if it fits. I'm now in maintenance and I did it just by eating in deficit and working out.0
-
However, many studies have found that people eat less on an all-you-can-eat low-carb diet vs an all-you-can-eat low-fat diet. In fact, many studies that compare low-carb to low-fat will let the low-carb subjects eat ad lib while the low-fat subjects are calorie restricted.
A tabulation of studies at http://smashthefat.com/science/ is a handy resource to see what has been done. I believe it's comprehensive (ie includes all studies with an LC arm) but haven't personally validated that.
The NZ meta-study link I posted is from the work used to "support" the WHO's sugar guidance. It basically says that there is no effect of sugar in exchange for other carbohydrate, and that the magnitude of change induced by decreasing or increasing sugar content of the diet across a large number of studies is a couple of pounds. So in terms of the OP the study says you don't need to worry about sugar per se unless a couple of pounds is a really big deal.
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
Some ok basic advice and some poor advice there.
0 -
thanks for everyones responses. i guess there are many good ways to do it and it's about finding the right one that works for me. i will continue with the 1200 calories (+exercise calories) as i do not lose if i go above this. I think i will stop trying to label what i'm doing, still not go wild with carbs/sugar but try to relax a bit and just focus on making healthier choices.0
-
However, many studies have found that people eat less on an all-you-can-eat low-carb diet vs an all-you-can-eat low-fat diet. In fact, many studies that compare low-carb to low-fat will let the low-carb subjects eat ad lib while the low-fat subjects are calorie restricted.
A tabulation of studies at http://smashthefat.com/science/ is a handy resource to see what has been done. I believe it's comprehensive (ie includes all studies with an LC arm) but haven't personally validated that.
The NZ meta-study link I posted is from the work used to "support" the WHO's sugar guidance. It basically says that there is no effect of sugar in exchange for other carbohydrate, and that the magnitude of change induced by decreasing or increasing sugar content of the diet across a large number of studies is a couple of pounds. So in terms of the OP the study says you don't need to worry about sugar per se unless a couple of pounds is a really big deal.
Lol biased garbage is garbage, the quickest way to look over these type of aggregations is if it includes the A to Z weight loss study, it should include the Dansinger study of nearly the same design but found the LC group performed the worst. Amazingly your link doesn't include the Dansinger study, much like the quack Diet doctor doesn't
0 -
Ah, the LOL guy. Perhaps you should provide the link and inform the creators of the summaries. Where's your extensive list of studies showing LC does worse ? LOL.
Perhaps they excluded the biased garbage from Dansinger with his alleged "Atkins" group eating 137 g of carbs in month 2 and 190g in month 6. LOL.
There was no significant difference in the weight loss at 12 months P=0.4 with Dansinger's LOC analysis, hard to tell what completers achieved.0 -
Best thing I've seen all day.0 -
Ah, the LOL guy. Perhaps you should provide the link and inform the creators of the summaries. Where's your extensive list of studies showing LC does worse ? LOL.
Perhaps they excluded the biased garbage from Dansinger with his alleged "Atkins" group eating 137 g of carbs in month 2 and 190g in month 6. LOL.
There was no significant difference in the weight loss at 12 months P=0.4 with Dansinger's LOC analysis, hard to tell what completers achieved.
Who claimed LC performs worse? Might have to look into long term effects of LC diets again, particularly confusion and bewilderment mood scores and cognitive functioning
And look it's the guy who can determine causation and control for all confounders despite a study not doing either
0
LOL 
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions