low carb diet has been debunked
Options
Replies
-
For a typical, lightly-active person, physiological changes (which may or may not be medically appropriate long term) start when carb intake is dropped to the 100-150g area, depending on size/genetics/etc.
My definition of low carb is any level flirting with that threshold, once activity burns are accounted for.
What physiological changes?
I'm very active and eat around 150-200 (depending on whether I'm going for a deficit and how much I eat calories back, and I vary from day to day -- I pretty much allow myself to eat whatever amount of carbs/fat I feel like, although I tend to eat a higher carb (meaning balanced, including a starch) meal when it's the last meal I will have before a workout. Just curious if this is something I should be concerned about. I occasionally drop below 150 when cutting calories/not eating back exercise and am wondering if stuff I've been attributing to lower calories might be more carb-level-related.0 -
Tagging go read later.0
-
What I have learned from this thread is that I have been eating low carb and didn't know it. *shrug*0
-
It was clearly a *kitten* study; anybody can see that. It's great how y'all treat these issues like politics or religion and argue about them so vehemently. I love that!0
-
You clearly did read the study or understandthe context of what they were doing a study on.85Cardinals wrote: »It was clearly a *kitten* study; anybody can see that. It's great how y'all treat these issues like politics or religion and argue about them so vehemently. I love that!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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 :-)
Yep, in another thread MrKnight just claimed that under 200 was low carb for him.
What Mr Knight claimed was that under 200g/day was low carb for any active, non-short male.
Yes, I understood that. I didn't think you were claiming to have some special low carb number just for you.
I don't personally think it makes sense to define "low carb" by "less than the SAD." I am undecided as to whether I think it ought to relate to some total number or to percentage of calories -- for once, I don't really care that much -- but I guess the percentage of calories method makes the most sense to me.
So what percentage? Lower than is normally recommended, so under 45%? Calling the common 40-30-30 macro "low carb" seems absurd to me, but I'm open to argument. Under 30%, under 20%? I don't care, although to me the there is a serious difference between "lower carb" and "puts one consistently in ketosis."
I think 40C / 30P / 30F is the Zone diet... I think.
Most low carbers seem to call those in ketosis as very LCHF (vLCHF).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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 :-)
Yep, in another thread MrKnight just claimed that under 200 was low carb for him.
What Mr Knight claimed was that under 200g/day was low carb for any active, non-short male.
Yes, I understood that. I didn't think you were claiming to have some special low carb number just for you.
I don't personally think it makes sense to define "low carb" by "less than the SAD." I am undecided as to whether I think it ought to relate to some total number or to percentage of calories -- for once, I don't really care that much -- but I guess the percentage of calories method makes the most sense to me.
So what percentage? Lower than is normally recommended, so under 45%? Calling the common 40-30-30 macro "low carb" seems absurd to me, but I'm open to argument. Under 30%, under 20%? I don't care, although to me the there is a serious difference between "lower carb" and "puts one consistently in ketosis."
I think 40C / 30P / 30F is the Zone diet... I think.
Most low carbers seem to call those in ketosis as very LCHF (vLCHF).
You are correct, that is a zone diet.
0 -
The Zone Diet is typically classified as low-carb.
0 -
The Zone Diet is 40% and a review is provided with this link
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/zone-diet/reviews
It didn't score very high, maybe in the bottom third of the 30 plus diets reviewed. It scored higher then the Paleo diet though. I think the Paleo was listed in the bottom 3.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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 :-)
Yep, in another thread MrKnight just claimed that under 200 was low carb for him.
What Mr Knight claimed was that under 200g/day was low carb for any active, non-short male.
Yes, I understood that. I didn't think you were claiming to have some special low carb number just for you.
I don't personally think it makes sense to define "low carb" by "less than the SAD." I am undecided as to whether I think it ought to relate to some total number or to percentage of calories -- for once, I don't really care that much -- but I guess the percentage of calories method makes the most sense to me.
So what percentage? Lower than is normally recommended, so under 45%? Calling the common 40-30-30 macro "low carb" seems absurd to me, but I'm open to argument. Under 30%, under 20%? I don't care, although to me the there is a serious difference between "lower carb" and "puts one consistently in ketosis."
I think 40C / 30P / 30F is the Zone diet... I think.
The Zone diet isn't just 40-30-30, but the idea that you should make every meal in those ratios.
40-30-30 is a really common ratio beyond Zone. (It's what I currently like also, not that that matters.) ;-)0 -
I remember the Susan Powter era in the 80's when she said fat made you fat, not food. I remember always being hungry when I ate low fat, and I also gained lots of weight. Now that I eat a balance of macros, I'm not starving.0 -
85Cardinals wrote: »It was clearly a *kitten* study; anybody can see that. It's great how y'all treat these issues like politics or religion and argue about them so vehemently. I love that!
There are hundreds and hundreds of other threads out there on the forums if the intense debate and discussion bothers you so deeply. Self care.
lol, go get em, tiger! Preach it, sistah.
0 -
I remember the Susan Powter era in the 80's when she said fat made you fat, not food. I remember always being hungry when I ate low fat, and I also gained lots of weight. Now that I eat a balance of macros, I'm not starving.
I completely bought into that. I remember discussing with someone how a solid fat like butter or marbling in meat would end up solid in your arteries. Sheesh. Oh, and I remember skipping butter on toast and just going with jam, where as no I think the butter is probably the most nutritious part. LOL0 -
I don't low-carb....well, not intentionally...but can i recall the 80 you lost and 50 i lost and then give it to a girl i hate? (here's the pettiness coming out, lol)0 -
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »
Can i reca
I don't low-carb....well, not intentionally...but can i recall the 80 you lost and 50 i lost and then give it to a girl i hate? (here's the pettiness coming out, lol)
Not sure this is relevant but you have kitten legs growing from your forearm. If this is a result of your diet?!?<> maybe cease eating tuna?!? IDK.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Blueseraphchaos wrote: »
Can i reca
I don't low-carb....well, not intentionally...but can i recall the 80 you lost and 50 i lost and then give it to a girl i hate? (here's the pettiness coming out, lol)
Not sure this is relevant but you have kitten legs growing from your forearm. If this is a result of your diet?!?<> maybe cease eating tuna?!? IDK.
I HATE tuna.
The whole picture has most of a cat....there's a whole cat somewhere..but you know, i could use some extra legs on my arms.0 -
Honestly, I'm only here right now because I'm waiting for a friend to get here so we can go to the club, and uhhhh, I've been drinking for 2 hours. Hmm.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 395 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 957 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions