low carb diet has been debunked
Replies
-
-
KittensMaster wrote: »
It would be super great if everyone could stop with that. (We may disagree as to where it's primarily coming from, though.)0 -
-
-
NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror), protein (Yay protein) and loads of fat (Oh noes not fat) and I've lost plenty of weight. Silly diets. EAT LESS, MOVE MORE.
I love a good diet thread me. Ha ha ha
But do you eat the evIL SUGARZ!?
0 -
Threads like these are the reason these forums can be sucky.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »The total numbers without anything else aren't exactly relevant though. If a 5' lightweight woman eats 80 grams of protein she's eatng fairly high protein, while a 6' guy with lots of muscle mass eating that much is eating pretty low.
So just saying "often less than the restricted carb part" is kinda misleading when you're comparing obese individuals on 1900 calories (and that's a 800 deficit) to someone who'd maintain at that much eating 1400 (who by the way has 170 g as her standard carb macro, I just checked).
Protein and fat minimums are determined by body weight, though. People post the calculations for the minimums when we talk about IIFYM all the time, and state to at least hit the minimum, then fill the rest in with carbs. With carbs, low vs high is determined by the overall amount irrespective to the person's stats.
Based on the calculation for protein and fat (I pulled this from ETP):
1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
If one just hit the minimum for protein and fat for their body weight, having ~200g or more of carbs left to play around with is not really a stretch. Which is where the low carb vs high carb distinction comes in, based on whether they choose to include more fats and/or protein (reducing the carbs).
(ETA: I stated that low vs high carbs were irrespective of a person's stats, meaning that while the amount of possible carbs available is based on what is left over after determining the protein and fat minimums, there is no calculation for a carb minimum based on a person's stats)0 -
stevencloser wrote: »The total numbers without anything else aren't exactly relevant though. If a 5' lightweight woman eats 80 grams of protein she's eatng fairly high protein, while a 6' guy with lots of muscle mass eating that much is eating pretty low.
So just saying "often less than the restricted carb part" is kinda misleading when you're comparing obese individuals on 1900 calories (and that's a 800 deficit) to someone who'd maintain at that much eating 1400 (who by the way has 170 g as her standard carb macro, I just checked).
Protein and fat minimums are determined by body weight, though. People post the calculations for the minimums when we talk about IIFYM all the time, and state to at least hit the minimum, then fill the rest in with carbs. With carbs, low vs high is determined by the overall amount irrespective to the person's stats.
Based on the calculation for protein and fat (I pulled this from ETP):
1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
If one just hit the minimum for protein and fat for their body weight, having ~200g or more of carbs left to play around with is not really a stretch. Which is where the low carb vs high carb distinction comes in, based on whether they choose to include more fats and/or protein (reducing the carbs).
(ETA: I stated that low vs high carbs were irrespective of a person's stats, meaning that while the amount of possible carbs available is based on what is left over after determining the protein and fat minimums, there is no calculation for a carb minimum based on a person's stats)
I don't think a flat number of grams is a good way to define low carb, as I said above, since the same amount that is considered "low" could be up to 40-something % of someone's total intake but still considered low and on the other hand for someone else that might mean less than 20% of their intake. It seems kinda paradoxical calling almost eating half your calories in carbs "low carb" just because your maintenance calories are low.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.
Where have people been saying 'you can't lose fat if you don't lower you carbs'???
Are they on the same thread as people who say low carb doesn't work and isn't sustainable??
0 -
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.
Where have people been saying 'you can't lose fat if you don't lower you carbs'???
Are they on the same thread as people who say low carb doesn't work and isn't sustainable??
There's some people mentioned in the first paragraph of the study. Taubes and others.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »Debunked in full? Eh, not really. And I'm not a low carber. It was a small study, though very well designed. The carbs weren't that low anyway.
It did show promise as a study design and as a model for further, longer-term and wider sample-size research.
This.
Good summary of the study here:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.htmlNow, let's talk about what this study is, and what it isn't:
It is an investigation of the mechanisms of short-term weight loss, specifically the mechanistic importance of calories vs. diet composition.
It is a well-designed test of the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis of obesity.
It isn't a test of which diet works best under real-world conditions, or how different diets affect hunger, food motivation, or food intake.
For those of you complaining about the length of the study
(from the Comments)This study was designed to investigate a mechanism, namely that insulin levels are the dominant controller of fat mass. It was sufficiently long to reject that hypothesis. The carb-insulin hypothesis doesn't say anything about insulin not being relevant to adiposity for the first 6 days, then kicking in after that. At least, not any version of it I've encountered. This study was not about which diet leads to better results under real-world conditions. There are many other studies that have addressed that question.
0 -
I'm not hung up on it, it's just interesting that posters proclaim their carb eating credentials while eating less than the supposedly "low carb" study under discussion. Similar things occur in sugar, where people saying "don't bother logging it" are eating like 45 or 70 grams or less. Hence the FWIW.
I'm clear that Hall's paper was a simple comparison of the effect of an 800 kcal carb restriction vs an 800 kcal fat restriction. It was carbohydrate restriction, not low carb. Feinman's definitions of terms are clear and should be generally adopted, if the ADA recommend 130g minimum then anything over isn't "low" even if it is "less".
Did I miss something? Were the people in the study restricted to 1200 calorie diets like all the people you are pointing out, or do you just have problems understanding percentages?0 -
Some people like to do this because they know tu quoque isn't proof of anything but is persuasive to people who know better. So they can highlight this without calling it proof of anything. Then no one tells them they're proposing tu quoque because technically they're not, but the people who aren't familiar with it being fallacious will still think the person's made a point. It's a bit of having your cake and eating it without insulin spikes too.stevencloser wrote: »
Why are you so hung up on that? It got explained why they didn't go lower than that and compared to what they had before, it IS low carb, and FWIW I get more total grams of carbs in a day total (irrelevant without context) and as a higher percentage of my macros (that's more important). There have been discussions on low carb before where multiple low carbers pretty much said "anything lower than SAD is low carb".NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror)
often less than the restricted carb part of this study, FWIW :-)0 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.
Where have people been saying 'you can't lose fat if you don't lower you carbs'???
Are they on the same thread as people who say low carb doesn't work and isn't sustainable??
There's some people mentioned in the first paragraph of the study. Taubes and others.
Taubes has never said that, at least that I've ever read, and I've read his books and many of his articles. He just shows the available data that says many people lose weight better on a LCHF diet, improve triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol... which is all true. Taubes doesn't do his own science. He collects older data and shows it without the original researcher's bias, and discusses how American policies on food were shaped. He's an award winning science writer.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'd hypothesize that the number is relatively flat regardless of weight because it has to do with if the body needs to make ketosis metabolism adaptations that have to do with organs, such as the brain needing to switch to using ketones over glucose. Humans don't tend to have much variance in organ metabolism, particularly for the brain (despite what it seems like, people seem to do the same amount of thinking, metabolically speaking).stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The total numbers without anything else aren't exactly relevant though. If a 5' lightweight woman eats 80 grams of protein she's eatng fairly high protein, while a 6' guy with lots of muscle mass eating that much is eating pretty low.
So just saying "often less than the restricted carb part" is kinda misleading when you're comparing obese individuals on 1900 calories (and that's a 800 deficit) to someone who'd maintain at that much eating 1400 (who by the way has 170 g as her standard carb macro, I just checked).
Protein and fat minimums are determined by body weight, though. People post the calculations for the minimums when we talk about IIFYM all the time, and state to at least hit the minimum, then fill the rest in with carbs. With carbs, low vs high is determined by the overall amount irrespective to the person's stats.
Based on the calculation for protein and fat (I pulled this from ETP):
1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
If one just hit the minimum for protein and fat for their body weight, having ~200g or more of carbs left to play around with is not really a stretch. Which is where the low carb vs high carb distinction comes in, based on whether they choose to include more fats and/or protein (reducing the carbs).
(ETA: I stated that low vs high carbs were irrespective of a person's stats, meaning that while the amount of possible carbs available is based on what is left over after determining the protein and fat minimums, there is no calculation for a carb minimum based on a person's stats)
I don't think a flat number of grams is a good way to define low carb, as I said above, since the same amount that is considered "low" could be up to 40-something % of someone's total intake but still considered low and on the other hand for someone else that might mean less than 20% of their intake. It seems kinda paradoxical calling almost eating half your calories in carbs "low carb" just because your maintenance calories are low.
For those doing keto....they tend to focus on the flat number. I know I did. I knew the net carbs that would just keep my body in a mild state of ketosis and I would shoot for that. I did notice the more I exercised...the more I could push that number, however that number would stay pretty static. Example....people often shoot for 50 net carbs or less when they are doing low carb. The person could be 120 lbs or 600 lbs and that number works for both. Of course the 600 lb person is going to need a heck of a lot more protein and fat outside of that to meet their caloric goals.
0 -
A new, thorough study shows a low fat diet is 80% more efficient. Finally, an end to the fad.
over time, the results of any calorie restricted diet are pretty much identical...whether it's low carb, low fat, or good old fashioned balanced diet...boring I know...
why do people feel this great need for everything to be extreme...everyone has gone stupid.-1 -
stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.
Where have people been saying 'you can't lose fat if you don't lower you carbs'???
Are they on the same thread as people who say low carb doesn't work and isn't sustainable??
There's some people mentioned in the first paragraph of the study. Taubes and others.
Taubes has never said that, at least that I've ever read, and I've read his books and many of his articles. He just shows the available data that says many people lose weight better on a LCHF diet, improve triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol... which is all true. Taubes doesn't do his own science. He collects older data and shows it without the original researcher's bias, and discusses how American policies on food were shaped. He's an award winning science writer.
"any diet that succeeds does so because the dieter restricts fattening carbohydrates …Those who lose fat on a diet do so because of what they are not eating—the fattening carbohydrates" - Why we get fat and what to do about it, Taubes
I don't think the authors of the study made up a direct quote.
Also Taubes and a few others are claiming there's increased FAT loss on low carb, which there isn't. More weight loss at first because of water weight is known.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'd hypothesize that the number is relatively flat regardless of weight because it has to do with if the body needs to make ketosis metabolism adaptations that have to do with organs, such as the brain needing to switch to using ketones over glucose. Humans don't tend to have much variance in organ metabolism, particularly for the brain (despite what it seems like, people seem to do the same amount of thinking, metabolically speaking).stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The total numbers without anything else aren't exactly relevant though. If a 5' lightweight woman eats 80 grams of protein she's eatng fairly high protein, while a 6' guy with lots of muscle mass eating that much is eating pretty low.
So just saying "often less than the restricted carb part" is kinda misleading when you're comparing obese individuals on 1900 calories (and that's a 800 deficit) to someone who'd maintain at that much eating 1400 (who by the way has 170 g as her standard carb macro, I just checked).
Protein and fat minimums are determined by body weight, though. People post the calculations for the minimums when we talk about IIFYM all the time, and state to at least hit the minimum, then fill the rest in with carbs. With carbs, low vs high is determined by the overall amount irrespective to the person's stats.
Based on the calculation for protein and fat (I pulled this from ETP):
1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
If one just hit the minimum for protein and fat for their body weight, having ~200g or more of carbs left to play around with is not really a stretch. Which is where the low carb vs high carb distinction comes in, based on whether they choose to include more fats and/or protein (reducing the carbs).
(ETA: I stated that low vs high carbs were irrespective of a person's stats, meaning that while the amount of possible carbs available is based on what is left over after determining the protein and fat minimums, there is no calculation for a carb minimum based on a person's stats)
I don't think a flat number of grams is a good way to define low carb, as I said above, since the same amount that is considered "low" could be up to 40-something % of someone's total intake but still considered low and on the other hand for someone else that might mean less than 20% of their intake. It seems kinda paradoxical calling almost eating half your calories in carbs "low carb" just because your maintenance calories are low.
For those doing keto....they tend to focus on the flat number. I know I did. I knew the net carbs that would just keep my body in a mild state of ketosis and I would shoot for that. I did notice the more I exercised...the more I could push that number, however that number would stay pretty static. Example....people often shoot for 50 net carbs or less when they are doing low carb. The person could be 120 lbs or 600 lbs and that number works for both. Of course the 600 lb person is going to need a heck of a lot more protein and fat outside of that to meet their caloric goals.
I'd hypothesize that you are correct. I also think the reason I could sneak in some more carbs when I was working out was because when exercising my body quickly burned up those carbs and it didn't trigger my body to kick out of the ketogenic state.
Time to make money with your own fad diet book: "The Low Carb Diet, Carb Eating Secret". Sell people on the idea that they can have all the fat loss of low carb, but still eat carbs if they eat them on a treadmill.0 -
0
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.
Where have people been saying 'you can't lose fat if you don't lower you carbs'???
Are they on the same thread as people who say low carb doesn't work and isn't sustainable??
There's some people mentioned in the first paragraph of the study. Taubes and others.
Taubes has never said that, at least that I've ever read, and I've read his books and many of his articles. He just shows the available data that says many people lose weight better on a LCHF diet, improve triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol... which is all true. Taubes doesn't do his own science. He collects older data and shows it without the original researcher's bias, and discusses how American policies on food were shaped. He's an award winning science writer.
"any diet that succeeds does so because the dieter restricts fattening carbohydrates …Those who lose fat on a diet do so because of what they are not eating—the fattening carbohydrates" - Why we get fat and what to do about it, Taubes
I don't think the authors of the study made up a direct quote.
Also Taubes and a few others are claiming there's increased FAT loss on low carb, which there isn't. More weight loss at first because of water weight is known.
I just finished rereading Taubes' book Why We Get Fat. In it he says that but it is in reference to an overall calorie deficit. If one cuts calories, protein is often not cut, and fats are not reduced by much (usually). It is the carbs that get cut the most. That extra bagel for a coffee snack, or less rice at dinner, or a smaller bowl of popcorn.
Taubes pointed out that when one cuts calories, one IS cuttiing carbs. The dieter may not cut carbs to a level of low carb, but carbs will have been restricted.
The quote isn't made up, it is taken out of context.0 -
I'd hypothesize that the number is relatively flat regardless of weight because it has to do with if the body needs to make ketosis metabolism adaptations that have to do with organs, such as the brain needing to switch to using ketones over glucose. Humans don't tend to have much variance in organ metabolism, particularly for the brain (despite what it seems like, people seem to do the same amount of thinking, metabolically speaking).stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The total numbers without anything else aren't exactly relevant though. If a 5' lightweight woman eats 80 grams of protein she's eatng fairly high protein, while a 6' guy with lots of muscle mass eating that much is eating pretty low.
So just saying "often less than the restricted carb part" is kinda misleading when you're comparing obese individuals on 1900 calories (and that's a 800 deficit) to someone who'd maintain at that much eating 1400 (who by the way has 170 g as her standard carb macro, I just checked).
Protein and fat minimums are determined by body weight, though. People post the calculations for the minimums when we talk about IIFYM all the time, and state to at least hit the minimum, then fill the rest in with carbs. With carbs, low vs high is determined by the overall amount irrespective to the person's stats.
Based on the calculation for protein and fat (I pulled this from ETP):
1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
If one just hit the minimum for protein and fat for their body weight, having ~200g or more of carbs left to play around with is not really a stretch. Which is where the low carb vs high carb distinction comes in, based on whether they choose to include more fats and/or protein (reducing the carbs).
(ETA: I stated that low vs high carbs were irrespective of a person's stats, meaning that while the amount of possible carbs available is based on what is left over after determining the protein and fat minimums, there is no calculation for a carb minimum based on a person's stats)
I don't think a flat number of grams is a good way to define low carb, as I said above, since the same amount that is considered "low" could be up to 40-something % of someone's total intake but still considered low and on the other hand for someone else that might mean less than 20% of their intake. It seems kinda paradoxical calling almost eating half your calories in carbs "low carb" just because your maintenance calories are low.
For those doing keto....they tend to focus on the flat number. I know I did. I knew the net carbs that would just keep my body in a mild state of ketosis and I would shoot for that. I did notice the more I exercised...the more I could push that number, however that number would stay pretty static. Example....people often shoot for 50 net carbs or less when they are doing low carb. The person could be 120 lbs or 600 lbs and that number works for both. Of course the 600 lb person is going to need a heck of a lot more protein and fat outside of that to meet their caloric goals.
I'm curious if you think that also holds true for "low carb". It's a more nebulous concept and doesn't actual have a set metabolic response like forming ketos. Do you think "low carb" is better defined as a percentage or a static number?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.
Where have people been saying 'you can't lose fat if you don't lower you carbs'???
Are they on the same thread as people who say low carb doesn't work and isn't sustainable??
There's some people mentioned in the first paragraph of the study. Taubes and others.
Taubes has never said that, at least that I've ever read, and I've read his books and many of his articles. He just shows the available data that says many people lose weight better on a LCHF diet, improve triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol... which is all true. Taubes doesn't do his own science. He collects older data and shows it without the original researcher's bias, and discusses how American policies on food were shaped. He's an award winning science writer.
"any diet that succeeds does so because the dieter restricts fattening carbohydrates …Those who lose fat on a diet do so because of what they are not eating—the fattening carbohydrates" - Why we get fat and what to do about it, Taubes
I don't think the authors of the study made up a direct quote.
Also Taubes and a few others are claiming there's increased FAT loss on low carb, which there isn't. More weight loss at first because of water weight is known.
I just finished rereading Taubes' book Why We Get Fat. In it he says that but it is in reference to an overall calorie deficit. If one cuts calories, protein is often not cut, and fats are not reduced by much (usually). It is the carbs that get cut the most. That extra bagel for a coffee snack, or less rice at dinner, or a smaller bowl of popcorn.
Taubes pointed out that when one cuts calories, one IS cuttiing carbs. The dieter may not cut carbs to a level of low carb, but carbs will have been restricted.
The quote isn't made up, it is taken out of context.
If that's so why does he call carbs fattening and say ANY diet that succeeds is because of the carbs, which is clearly wrong since you can keep carbs exactly the same or even eat more of them and be successful? I'm sorry but he is clearly trying to blame the carbs.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »"Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat." What does is this saying in non science nerd speak?
It's gonna come out at about the same amount of fat loss long term regardless of how much fat or carbs you eat. So no debunking going on except for debunking the people saying you can't lose fat if you don't lower carbs.
Where have people been saying 'you can't lose fat if you don't lower you carbs'???
Are they on the same thread as people who say low carb doesn't work and isn't sustainable??
There's some people mentioned in the first paragraph of the study. Taubes and others.
Taubes has never said that, at least that I've ever read, and I've read his books and many of his articles. He just shows the available data that says many people lose weight better on a LCHF diet, improve triglycerides, and HDL cholesterol... which is all true. Taubes doesn't do his own science. He collects older data and shows it without the original researcher's bias, and discusses how American policies on food were shaped. He's an award winning science writer.
"any diet that succeeds does so because the dieter restricts fattening carbohydrates …Those who lose fat on a diet do so because of what they are not eating—the fattening carbohydrates" - Why we get fat and what to do about it, Taubes
I don't think the authors of the study made up a direct quote.
Also Taubes and a few others are claiming there's increased FAT loss on low carb, which there isn't. More weight loss at first because of water weight is known.
I just finished rereading Taubes' book Why We Get Fat. In it he says that but it is in reference to an overall calorie deficit. If one cuts calories, protein is often not cut, and fats are not reduced by much (usually). It is the carbs that get cut the most. That extra bagel for a coffee snack, or less rice at dinner, or a smaller bowl of popcorn.
Taubes pointed out that when one cuts calories, one IS cuttiing carbs. The dieter may not cut carbs to a level of low carb, but carbs will have been restricted.
The quote isn't made up, it is taken out of context.
If that's so why does he call carbs fattening and say ANY diet that succeeds is because of the carbs, which is clearly wrong since you can keep carbs exactly the same or even eat more of them and be successful? I'm sorry but he is clearly trying to blame the carbs.
Carbs is often the main problem. Many, if not the majority, of obese people have insulin resistance. Those with IR will put on weight more easily because of their increased levels of insulin, which drives fat storage, never mind the fat that it drives cravings for carbs which will increase caloric intake.
For many overweight people, it IS too many carbs in the diet, in the form of added sugars and processed grains, that cause weight gain. Not many people gain on veggies, meat and eggs. (And yes, I know some will, but according to the research, they are a minority).
Try reading his books: Good Calories, Bad Calories and Why We Get Fat. They're quite interesting. Or take a look at his articles: http://garytaubes.com/works/articles/0 -
I'm just hypothesizing, and spitballing it as a lot of low carb recommendations say to shoot for under 100 grams of net carbs, which coincidentally is pretty close to the general number of 100 grams of glucose the brain needs unless it starts making ketone adaptations.
I'd hypothesize that the number is relatively flat regardless of weight because it has to do with if the body needs to make ketosis metabolism adaptations that have to do with organs, such as the brain needing to switch to using ketones over glucose. Humans don't tend to have much variance in organ metabolism, particularly for the brain (despite what it seems like, people seem to do the same amount of thinking, metabolically speaking).stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »The total numbers without anything else aren't exactly relevant though. If a 5' lightweight woman eats 80 grams of protein she's eatng fairly high protein, while a 6' guy with lots of muscle mass eating that much is eating pretty low.
So just saying "often less than the restricted carb part" is kinda misleading when you're comparing obese individuals on 1900 calories (and that's a 800 deficit) to someone who'd maintain at that much eating 1400 (who by the way has 170 g as her standard carb macro, I just checked).
Protein and fat minimums are determined by body weight, though. People post the calculations for the minimums when we talk about IIFYM all the time, and state to at least hit the minimum, then fill the rest in with carbs. With carbs, low vs high is determined by the overall amount irrespective to the person's stats.
Based on the calculation for protein and fat (I pulled this from ETP):
1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
If one just hit the minimum for protein and fat for their body weight, having ~200g or more of carbs left to play around with is not really a stretch. Which is where the low carb vs high carb distinction comes in, based on whether they choose to include more fats and/or protein (reducing the carbs).
(ETA: I stated that low vs high carbs were irrespective of a person's stats, meaning that while the amount of possible carbs available is based on what is left over after determining the protein and fat minimums, there is no calculation for a carb minimum based on a person's stats)
I don't think a flat number of grams is a good way to define low carb, as I said above, since the same amount that is considered "low" could be up to 40-something % of someone's total intake but still considered low and on the other hand for someone else that might mean less than 20% of their intake. It seems kinda paradoxical calling almost eating half your calories in carbs "low carb" just because your maintenance calories are low.
For those doing keto....they tend to focus on the flat number. I know I did. I knew the net carbs that would just keep my body in a mild state of ketosis and I would shoot for that. I did notice the more I exercised...the more I could push that number, however that number would stay pretty static. Example....people often shoot for 50 net carbs or less when they are doing low carb. The person could be 120 lbs or 600 lbs and that number works for both. Of course the 600 lb person is going to need a heck of a lot more protein and fat outside of that to meet their caloric goals.
I'm curious if you think that also holds true for "low carb". It's a more nebulous concept and doesn't actual have a set metabolic response like forming ketos. Do you think "low carb" is better defined as a percentage or a static number?0 -
goldthistime wrote: »I agree with Stephen Guyenet's assessment....
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2015/08/a-new-human-trial-seriously-undermines.html
In that same blog, Stephen theorizes that one of the reasons low carb and low fat diets work so well initially is that we burn more calories adjusting to these atypical ratios. Seems to me like a reasonable hypothesis. Given that we agree that the low carb diet in this study isn't the lowest low carb diet, and that the fat in the low fat diet is unusually low, it could be argued that the difference in the fat loss for those six days is just that the subjects' bodies found the low fat diet to be more of a metabolic adjustment than the lowish carb diet.
And I'm sure someone else has already posted this, but just in case, the low carb subjects actually lost more weight. If you are all about the scale (which generally you shouldn't be), low carb wins over the short term.
0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »NobodyPutsAmyInTheCorner wrote: »I eat carbs (shock horror), protein (Yay protein) and loads of fat (Oh noes not fat) and I've lost plenty of weight. Silly diets. EAT LESS, MOVE MORE.
I love a good diet thread me. Ha ha ha
But do you eat the evIL SUGARZ!?
Why Yes. Yes I do. The Horrorz0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions