low carb diet has been debunked
Options
Replies
-
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 forgot all about her! Here she is in a 2010 youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpkeQy29XPI
0 -
heheheh. . . . .oh you'll be fine tomorrow. Why do you hate tuna?Blueseraphchaos wrote: »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 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
heheheh. . . . .oh you'll be fine tomorrow. Why do you hate tuna?Blueseraphchaos wrote: »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.
I've always hated it..not sure if it's the texture or smell. I can choke down tuna steaks, but that's about it. Oh, and sushi. I do enjoy raw tuna.
Must be the smell from the canned, and i associate that with all tuna. I'm an odd human, i mean i do have kitty legs growing from my arm...0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
heheheh. . . . .oh you'll be fine tomorrow. Why do you hate tuna?Blueseraphchaos wrote: »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.
And so glad i don't work tomorrow, lol. I drank a bottle of wine last night and had to work this morning, oops.
0 -
mmmmm Sushi. . . . . good news about the kitty legs though. . .they are a lovely color.0
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »mmmmm Sushi. . . . . good news about the kitty legs though. . .they are a lovely color.
I have a lynx-point Siamese, but he refused to join with me...sigh. But thanks! The kitty is named Yemington, short for Gemini. ;p0 -
goldthistime wrote: »
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 forgot all about her! Here she is in a 2010 youtube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpkeQy29XPI
I got through about 2 minutes and 50 seconds, then........
0 -
Just my 2 cents, I'm a low carb eater. I am low carb not to lose weight, but for other benefits. I am prediabetic and have poly cystic ovarian syndrome and I found low carb to help improve these conditions. I also have binge eating disorder and the lower appetite that comes with ketosis helps immensely. I also used to fall asleep after every meal before keto and don't now.
I watch calories and exercise to lose weight. Low carb/keto just helps with everything else. I think you will find a lot of low carb folk are similar.0 -
Just my 2 cents, I'm a low carb eater. I am low carb not to lose weight, but for other benefits. I am prediabetic and have poly cystic ovarian syndrome and I found low carb to help improve these conditions. I also have binge eating disorder and the lower appetite that comes with ketosis helps immensely. I also used to fall asleep after every meal before keto and don't now.
I watch calories and exercise to lose weight. Low carb/keto just helps with everything else. I think you will find a lot of low carb folk are similar.
Same here, I was prediabetic and had hereditary high blood pressure and high cholesterol, but Keto has helped resolve all of that (and I lost 85 pounds!). I eat 20 net carbs or less per day, and I strongly despise when people tell me it doesn't work, or it's unhealthy for you. I'm just like "...what?..." When I saw this topic, I was somewhat upset, because the author seemed...proud...that LCHF diets were """"debunked"""". I don't even then I could put enough quotes on that.
0 -
For me a low carb diet is what works the best. When I eat too much sugar, I become bloated and sleepy. I just think you have to find what works the best for you. Every time the media find a "new study", new products will come for sale.0
-
Just my 2 cents, I'm a low carb eater. I am low carb not to lose weight, but for other benefits. I am prediabetic and have poly cystic ovarian syndrome and I found low carb to help improve these conditions. I also have binge eating disorder and the lower appetite that comes with ketosis helps immensely. I also used to fall asleep after every meal before keto and don't now.
I watch calories and exercise to lose weight. Low carb/keto just helps with everything else. I think you will find a lot of low carb folk are similar.
Same here, I was prediabetic and had hereditary high blood pressure and high cholesterol, but Keto has helped resolve all of that (and I lost 85 pounds!). I eat 20 net carbs or less per day, and I strongly despise when people tell me it doesn't work, or it's unhealthy for you. I'm just like "...what?..." When I saw this topic, I was somewhat upset, because the author seemed...proud...that LCHF diets were """"debunked"""". I don't even then I could put enough quotes on that.
I think it's great that it works for you. Like I said upthread I think low carb is a good strategy for some to maintain a calorie deficit, even if the low carb claims like "you lose fat better if you keep insulin down" are debunked.
What I think provokes some of the argument on this forum, though, is that lots of low carbers seem to assume that their own personal issues with carbs mean that carbs are unhealthy for everyone (sometimes to the absurd degree of claiming that a diet low in vegetables and very high in sat fat is healthier, since lower carb).
I'd just like to point out that you shouldn't assume -- and I'm not saying you do, but I've seen it over and over -- that most of us who eat normal amounts of carbs struggle with appetite or are falling asleep after meals or feeling crappy or would be healthier if we cut our carbs. I do see keto sometimes recommended as a way to stay below 1200 easily and it might be easier (although I doubt I could keep up my current exercise program on keto, let alone on under 1200), and on occasion that worries me as I don't think it's idea to focus on killing your appetite so that you can eat levels that might be overly low anyway. If the appetite is making it tough to maintain a deficit, though, of course I get it.
Anyway, again, I am not directing this at you; just trying to explain why some of the reaction exists.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Just my 2 cents, I'm a low carb eater. I am low carb not to lose weight, but for other benefits. I am prediabetic and have poly cystic ovarian syndrome and I found low carb to help improve these conditions. I also have binge eating disorder and the lower appetite that comes with ketosis helps immensely. I also used to fall asleep after every meal before keto and don't now.
I watch calories and exercise to lose weight. Low carb/keto just helps with everything else. I think you will find a lot of low carb folk are similar.
Same here, I was prediabetic and had hereditary high blood pressure and high cholesterol, but Keto has helped resolve all of that (and I lost 85 pounds!). I eat 20 net carbs or less per day, and I strongly despise when people tell me it doesn't work, or it's unhealthy for you. I'm just like "...what?..." When I saw this topic, I was somewhat upset, because the author seemed...proud...that LCHF diets were """"debunked"""". I don't even then I could put enough quotes on that.
I think it's great that it works for you. Like I said upthread I think low carb is a good strategy for some to maintain a calorie deficit, even if the low carb claims like "you lose fat better if you keep insulin down" are debunked.
What I think provokes some of the argument on this forum, though, is that lots of low carbers seem to assume that their own personal issues with carbs mean that carbs are unhealthy for everyone (sometimes to the absurd degree of claiming that a diet low in vegetables and very high in sat fat is healthier, since lower carb).
I'd just like to point out that you shouldn't assume -- and I'm not saying you do, but I've seen it over and over -- that most of us who eat normal amounts of carbs struggle with appetite or are falling asleep after meals or feeling crappy or would be healthier if we cut our carbs. I do see keto sometimes recommended as a way to stay below 1200 easily and it might be easier (although I doubt I could keep up my current exercise program on keto, let alone on under 1200), and on occasion that worries me as I don't think it's idea to focus on killing your appetite so that you can eat levels that might be overly low anyway. If the appetite is making it tough to maintain a deficit, though, of course I get it.
Anyway, again, I am not directing this at you; just trying to explain why some of the reaction exists.
I'm not directing this at you, lemurcat12, but adding to the conversation.
Some of the reaction also exists because some non-low carbers assume that every comment someone shares about why they chose to go low carb means that they think everyone has the same issues they have with carbs, or that they think everyone should go low carb.
I find that most of the regular low carb users on this site tend to be very realistic about low carb, and when they throw it out as a suggestion, it's just that: a suggestion. This is what worked for them. It's no different than when someone shares that IIFYM or simply moderating intake worked for them. The claims that people are "demonizing" carbs or sugar if they suggest low carb is the claimant projecting their own beliefs about low carb, and rarely what the low carb advocate actually said. There are thousands of low carb users in the forums, and we see a handful who make outrageous claims; that's hardly "lots" of low carbers. It's a vocal minority at best, they just happen to be very vocal.
I'm not disputing that we have had some very colorful characters in this community or seen some outrageous claims (which are thankfully disputed), but "explaining the reaction" feels a bit like "blaming the person who used the word low carb to justify an inappropriate response based on personal biases and past experience with others." No one should have to accept other people's "reactions" to their statements when the statement is no way controversial. If a person has gotten to the point where every time they see someone mention low carb, they automatically think that the person thinks carbs are bad or that the person thinks everyone should cut carbs, then they are the one with the issue and they need to resolve it.
We often see people say that "just because you go on a diet, doesn't mean everyone else has to go on a diet to keep you in check." The same thing applies here - just because you have biases about low carb, doesn't mean everyone else has to stop posting about it, or only post in a certain way, to keep you from having a "reaction."0 -
I keep my carb intake around 50% of overall diet, so that's not "low carb", but I moderate carbs.silvia32444 wrote: »For me a low carb diet is what works the best. When I eat too much sugar, I become bloated and sleepy. I just think you have to find what works the best for you. Every time the media find a "new study", new products will come for sale.
I try to regulate the quality of carb intake.
0 -
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.
I agree with lots of that. Well said.
Keep in mind your activity level for the day as well.
If you intake a blast of carbs before a 2 hour cardio event and burn off all that and another 1500 calories. You are still net zero on carbs for the day as compared to a sedentary dieter. Except you have all the positives associated with endurance exercise.
The nutrition debates minus context seem to have little value
I may take in 200 carbs today. I will burn off 2000-2500 calories in a ride in some hilly terrain that will be a bit over 43 miles.
I am still net very low carb for the day.
A big salad with grilled chicken and a mix of ribs and wings off the grill later.
Where you net out on the deficit and what you use up that day counts more than a number without context.
Sedentary dieter analysis often gets misapplied to athlete diet analysis on MFP.
I have found that the forums debates so often lack those critical details and just spin into unproductive arguments.
I will eat 250 carbs today. If someone thinks that is too high to net out as low carb then come do my workout and we can talk at the end of the day.
Bring sunscreen, it is gonna be hot.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Just my 2 cents, I'm a low carb eater. I am low carb not to lose weight, but for other benefits. I am prediabetic and have poly cystic ovarian syndrome and I found low carb to help improve these conditions. I also have binge eating disorder and the lower appetite that comes with ketosis helps immensely. I also used to fall asleep after every meal before keto and don't now.
I watch calories and exercise to lose weight. Low carb/keto just helps with everything else. I think you will find a lot of low carb folk are similar.
Same here, I was prediabetic and had hereditary high blood pressure and high cholesterol, but Keto has helped resolve all of that (and I lost 85 pounds!). I eat 20 net carbs or less per day, and I strongly despise when people tell me it doesn't work, or it's unhealthy for you. I'm just like "...what?..." When I saw this topic, I was somewhat upset, because the author seemed...proud...that LCHF diets were """"debunked"""". I don't even then I could put enough quotes on that.
I think it's great that it works for you. Like I said upthread I think low carb is a good strategy for some to maintain a calorie deficit, even if the low carb claims like "you lose fat better if you keep insulin down" are debunked.
What I think provokes some of the argument on this forum, though, is that lots of low carbers seem to assume that their own personal issues with carbs mean that carbs are unhealthy for everyone (sometimes to the absurd degree of claiming that a diet low in vegetables and very high in sat fat is healthier, since lower carb).
I'd just like to point out that you shouldn't assume -- and I'm not saying you do, but I've seen it over and over -- that most of us who eat normal amounts of carbs struggle with appetite or are falling asleep after meals or feeling crappy or would be healthier if we cut our carbs. I do see keto sometimes recommended as a way to stay below 1200 easily and it might be easier (although I doubt I could keep up my current exercise program on keto, let alone on under 1200), and on occasion that worries me as I don't think it's idea to focus on killing your appetite so that you can eat levels that might be overly low anyway. If the appetite is making it tough to maintain a deficit, though, of course I get it.
Anyway, again, I am not directing this at you; just trying to explain why some of the reaction exists.
I'm not directing this at you, lemurcat12, but adding to the conversation.
Some of the reaction also exists because some non-low carbers assume that every comment someone shares about why they chose to go low carb means that they think everyone has the same issues they have with carbs, or that they think everyone should go low carb.
I find that most of the regular low carb users on this site tend to be very realistic about low carb, and when they throw it out as a suggestion, it's just that: a suggestion. This is what worked for them. It's no different than when someone shares that IIFYM or simply moderating intake worked for them. The claims that people are "demonizing" carbs or sugar if they suggest low carb is the claimant projecting their own beliefs about low carb, and rarely what the low carb advocate actually said. There are thousands of low carb users in the forums, and we see a handful who make outrageous claims; that's hardly "lots" of low carbers. It's a vocal minority at best, they just happen to be very vocal.
I'm not disputing that we have had some very colorful characters in this community or seen some outrageous claims (which are thankfully disputed), but "explaining the reaction" feels a bit like "blaming the person who used the word low carb to justify an inappropriate response based on personal biases and past experience with others." No one should have to accept other people's "reactions" to their statements when the statement is no way controversial. If a person has gotten to the point where every time they see someone mention low carb, they automatically think that the person thinks carbs are bad or that the person thinks everyone should cut carbs, then they are the one with the issue and they need to resolve it.
We often see people say that "just because you go on a diet, doesn't mean everyone else has to go on a diet to keep you in check." The same thing applies here - just because you have biases about low carb, doesn't mean everyone else has to stop posting about it, or only post in a certain way, to keep you from having a "reaction."
^^^^^ this
0 -
At 55lbs lost since March, I'm digging this feeling of being debunked. Lol.
Seriously, there are way to many studies out there proving every side of the argument. I'm conducting my own study. Low carb/Atkins induction style/1 subject. Me!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Just my 2 cents, I'm a low carb eater. I am low carb not to lose weight, but for other benefits. I am prediabetic and have poly cystic ovarian syndrome and I found low carb to help improve these conditions. I also have binge eating disorder and the lower appetite that comes with ketosis helps immensely. I also used to fall asleep after every meal before keto and don't now.
I watch calories and exercise to lose weight. Low carb/keto just helps with everything else. I think you will find a lot of low carb folk are similar.
Same here, I was prediabetic and had hereditary high blood pressure and high cholesterol, but Keto has helped resolve all of that (and I lost 85 pounds!). I eat 20 net carbs or less per day, and I strongly despise when people tell me it doesn't work, or it's unhealthy for you. I'm just like "...what?..." When I saw this topic, I was somewhat upset, because the author seemed...proud...that LCHF diets were """"debunked"""". I don't even then I could put enough quotes on that.
I think it's great that it works for you. Like I said upthread I think low carb is a good strategy for some to maintain a calorie deficit, even if the low carb claims like "you lose fat better if you keep insulin down" are debunked.
What I think provokes some of the argument on this forum, though, is that lots of low carbers seem to assume that their own personal issues with carbs mean that carbs are unhealthy for everyone (sometimes to the absurd degree of claiming that a diet low in vegetables and very high in sat fat is healthier, since lower carb).
I'd just like to point out that you shouldn't assume -- and I'm not saying you do, but I've seen it over and over -- that most of us who eat normal amounts of carbs struggle with appetite or are falling asleep after meals or feeling crappy or would be healthier if we cut our carbs. I do see keto sometimes recommended as a way to stay below 1200 easily and it might be easier (although I doubt I could keep up my current exercise program on keto, let alone on under 1200), and on occasion that worries me as I don't think it's idea to focus on killing your appetite so that you can eat levels that might be overly low anyway. If the appetite is making it tough to maintain a deficit, though, of course I get it.
Anyway, again, I am not directing this at you; just trying to explain why some of the reaction exists.
I'm not directing this at you, lemurcat12, but adding to the conversation.
Some of the reaction also exists because some non-low carbers assume that every comment someone shares about why they chose to go low carb means that they think everyone has the same issues they have with carbs, or that they think everyone should go low carb.
I find that most of the regular low carb users on this site tend to be very realistic about low carb, and when they throw it out as a suggestion, it's just that: a suggestion. This is what worked for them. It's no different than when someone shares that IIFYM or simply moderating intake worked for them. The claims that people are "demonizing" carbs or sugar if they suggest low carb is the claimant projecting their own beliefs about low carb, and rarely what the low carb advocate actually said. There are thousands of low carb users in the forums, and we see a handful who make outrageous claims; that's hardly "lots" of low carbers. It's a vocal minority at best, they just happen to be very vocal.
I'm not disputing that we have had some very colorful characters in this community or seen some outrageous claims (which are thankfully disputed), but "explaining the reaction" feels a bit like "blaming the person who used the word low carb to justify an inappropriate response based on personal biases and past experience with others." No one should have to accept other people's "reactions" to their statements when the statement is no way controversial. If a person has gotten to the point where every time they see someone mention low carb, they automatically think that the person thinks carbs are bad or that the person thinks everyone should cut carbs, then they are the one with the issue and they need to resolve it.
We often see people say that "just because you go on a diet, doesn't mean everyone else has to go on a diet to keep you in check." The same thing applies here - just because you have biases about low carb, doesn't mean everyone else has to stop posting about it, or only post in a certain way, to keep you from having a "reaction."
True. However it is also true that most people who get dubbed the 'CICO cult' aren't biased about low carb. I have heard more time than I can count that low carb one of many ways of maintaining a caloric deficit from those who choose the IIFYM methodology. The debate I see is when people who eat a certain type of eating make claims that they fundamentally believe to be true, but the actual science just doesn't support. There is value in confronting that.
The "CICO Cult" is just as bad in its own way. The "all calories are equal" and "exercise doesn't matter for weight loss" mantras are just as wrong as claiming low carb is the One True Path - but we hear them anyway, over and over again.
Every approach is susceptible to being reduced to a meaningless soundbite. And this being the internet, we know that anything that can happen, will happen.0 -
At 55lbs lost since March, I'm digging this feeling of being debunked. Lol.
Seriously, there are way to many studies out there proving every side of the argument. I'm conducting my own study. Low carb/Atkins induction style/1 subject. Me!
Excellent that this diet worked for you in order to stay in a calorie deficit, which is exactly why you lost weight. It's never the diet itself that is magic, but the work you put into it to make sure you eat less than you burn.
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
- 958 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions