Low carb diets - there is no way they can limit of 25 to 50 carbs a day?
Options
Replies
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Hey, if you're going to list "I can eat so many different veggies and still be low carb!" but it turns out you had mostly lettuce with a little slice of each of the other veggies (that are all higher in carb), it looks dishonest.
I could also say I had 10 rum+cokes and stayed under my calorie goal and wasn't even tipsy, because I used diet coke and split a single shot out over all 10 of them.
My diet isn't dishonest; it's what I eat. How 80g lettuce out of 600g-800g of vegetables equals "mostly" I do not know. I can only assume you learned math at the same school that taught reading comprehension.
What I actually said:
"That's really not true about the vegetables; if it's a priority even the lowest carb diets have room for fruits and vegetables."
"Low carb does not mean low vegetable -- that's a personal choice just like with any other macro split."
<snip> There is no way you're hitting under 20 carbs eating multiple servings of veggies a day- it's not happening. - not saying you cant' eat SOME- obviously that would be stupid. But if you're eating 2 bags of veggies at 3.5-4 servings a pop- you're not hitting an under 20.
Why anyone would hang onto their prejudice so hard is beyond me but... you can eat 2 bags of vegetables and still eat a low carb diet.
2 Bag of Broccoli (9 cups worth!) is 27g Total | 9g Net
2 Bags of Green Beans (9 cups worth!) is 45g Total | 18 Net
I can actually eat FOUR bags of vegetables (18 cups worth!) and that still only equals 27g of net carbs which is a strict, ketogenic level of carbohydrate.
0 -
Let's throw a wrench in the post and see
what happens.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20100301/low-fat--diet-tops-low-carb-in-long-run0 -
Eh. Again- low carb is relative in terms of the over all proportion of your diet. Someone eating under 1000 calories a day and claiming she eats veggies and still hitting under 25- no. She wasn't eating veggies. She was barely eating- much less eating veggies.
I believe I'm the "she" to which you're referring.
Based on yesterday, I could double my calories from 800ish to 1600ish and still be under 25g. Yesterday nor the two days before were typical days. My typical day puts me right at 20g, but I can't say that the two super-low days bothered me. They were just different... and required.
Right now less than a year post-surgery, I don't have any "typical" days. I do have a regiment to follow that includes, whether I like it or not, bread, pasta, and potatoes. Those cause me a lot of pain to digest and always have, even before obesity and surgery. I still have to try to eat them under doctor's orders. When I get my choice, I won't eat them anymore and all of those carbs can go towards veggies. I do eat veggies, just not many. First and foremost, the food I ingest must contain protein. I have a 3oz stomach and have to get 100g of protein in there every day. That ain't easy, so meat and dairy first. That's awesome, since I have no problems digesting them! Before surgery, I had a few veggies I couldn't eat because of pain, but after surgery? All but 6 hurt. I don't just mean an ouchy tummy. I mean so incredibly painful to digest that I'm doubled over. Rampant diarrhea and/or constipation. On the really fun days, both in the same day. If the vomiting starts, that's the end of my eating day maybe for a couple of days, then I don't get any nutrition at all. More important, they don't fit my doctor's goals for me. When I can add calories, I'd love to add veggies. We'll see how my stomach and GI tract feel about that when the time comes.
The OP said, "There is no way," and my post was to confirm that, in fact, there is a way to maintain below 25g of carbs daily and survive just fine. Is it sustainable my entire life, if necessary? Yes. Is it my preferred way? No. But right now, it's the way I must eat.
I state this with ridiculous regularity for a reason... My diet isn't normal. I don't claim it is. I don't claim others *should* eat this way without careful supervision of a doctor specializing in weight loss. However, the diet itself with incredibly low carb numbers *is* sustainable long-term. And yes, my nutrient profile in my blood work is just fine. It's a full panel every 90 days just to make sure. Again, with careful supervision, the diet is possible and sustainable. I just hope that it's expandable to veggies. We'll see.0 -
ldrosophila wrote: »Let's throw a wrench in the post and see
what happens.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20100301/low-fat--diet-tops-low-carb-in-long-run
or look at the >20 studies where low carb is either better or not different to the comparative diet, rather than one web posting.0 -
ldrosophila wrote: »Let's throw a wrench in the post and see
what happens.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20100301/low-fat--diet-tops-low-carb-in-long-run
or look at the >20 studies where low carb is either better or not different to the comparative diet, rather than one web posting.
Tee-Hee
National Weight Control Registry members have lost an average of 33 kg and maintained the loss for more than 5 y. To maintain their weight loss, members report engaging in high levels of physical activity (≈1 h/d), eating a low-calorie, low-fat diet, eating breakfast regularly, self-monitoring weight, and maintaining a consistent eating pattern across weekdays and weekends.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.full
0 -
ldrosophila wrote: »ldrosophila wrote: »Let's throw a wrench in the post and see
what happens.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20100301/low-fat--diet-tops-low-carb-in-long-run
or look at the >20 studies where low carb is either better or not different to the comparative diet, rather than one web posting.
Tee-Hee
National Weight Control Registry members have lost an average of 33 kg and maintained the loss for more than 5 y. To maintain their weight loss, members report engaging in high levels of physical activity (≈1 h/d), eating a low-calorie, low-fat diet, eating breakfast regularly, self-monitoring weight, and maintaining a consistent eating pattern across weekdays and weekends.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.full
Is there a 10 year follow-up to that self selected group ?0 -
ldrosophila wrote: »ldrosophila wrote: »Let's throw a wrench in the post and see
what happens.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/20100301/low-fat--diet-tops-low-carb-in-long-run
or look at the >20 studies where low carb is either better or not different to the comparative diet, rather than one web posting.
Tee-Hee
National Weight Control Registry members have lost an average of 33 kg and maintained the loss for more than 5 y. To maintain their weight loss, members report engaging in high levels of physical activity (≈1 h/d), eating a low-calorie, low-fat diet, eating breakfast regularly, self-monitoring weight, and maintaining a consistent eating pattern across weekdays and weekends.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/222S.full
Is there a 10 year follow-up to that self selected group ?
I don't know I was just wrench throwing. The differences between low carb, low fat, and calorie restricted over the long term become negligible if you look at a number of studies.
However, if anyone is curious check out the national weight loss registry I think they've been collecting data since the 90's?
http://www.nwcr.ws/
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Hey, if you're going to list "I can eat so many different veggies and still be low carb!" but it turns out you had mostly lettuce with a little slice of each of the other veggies (that are all higher in carb), it looks dishonest.
I could also say I had 10 rum+cokes and stayed under my calorie goal and wasn't even tipsy, because I used diet coke and split a single shot out over all 10 of them.
My diet isn't dishonest; it's what I eat. How 80g lettuce out of 600g-800g of vegetables equals "mostly" I do not know. I can only assume you learned math at the same school that taught reading comprehension.
What I actually said:
"That's really not true about the vegetables; if it's a priority even the lowest carb diets have room for fruits and vegetables."
"Low carb does not mean low vegetable -- that's a personal choice just like with any other macro split."
<snip> There is no way you're hitting under 20 carbs eating multiple servings of veggies a day- it's not happening. - not saying you cant' eat SOME- obviously that would be stupid. But if you're eating 2 bags of veggies at 3.5-4 servings a pop- you're not hitting an under 20.
Why anyone would hang onto their prejudice so hard is beyond me but... you can eat 2 bags of vegetables and still eat a low carb diet.
2 Bag of Broccoli (9 cups worth!) is 27g Total | 9g Net
2 Bags of Green Beans (9 cups worth!) is 45g Total | 18 Net
I can actually eat FOUR bags of vegetables (18 cups worth!) and that still only equals 27g of net carbs which is a strict, ketogenic level of carbohydrate.
72- it says 72 carbs
I don't care about your net carbs- I'm talking carbs. it's 72 carbs- that's not under 25.
I'm not hanging on to a prejudice- it's a reality of numbers.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Hey, if you're going to list "I can eat so many different veggies and still be low carb!" but it turns out you had mostly lettuce with a little slice of each of the other veggies (that are all higher in carb), it looks dishonest.
I could also say I had 10 rum+cokes and stayed under my calorie goal and wasn't even tipsy, because I used diet coke and split a single shot out over all 10 of them.
My diet isn't dishonest; it's what I eat. How 80g lettuce out of 600g-800g of vegetables equals "mostly" I do not know. I can only assume you learned math at the same school that taught reading comprehension.
What I actually said:
"That's really not true about the vegetables; if it's a priority even the lowest carb diets have room for fruits and vegetables."
"Low carb does not mean low vegetable -- that's a personal choice just like with any other macro split."
<snip> There is no way you're hitting under 20 carbs eating multiple servings of veggies a day- it's not happening. - not saying you cant' eat SOME- obviously that would be stupid. But if you're eating 2 bags of veggies at 3.5-4 servings a pop- you're not hitting an under 20.
Why anyone would hang onto their prejudice so hard is beyond me but... you can eat 2 bags of vegetables and still eat a low carb diet.
2 Bag of Broccoli (9 cups worth!) is 27g Total | 9g Net
2 Bags of Green Beans (9 cups worth!) is 45g Total | 18 Net
I can actually eat FOUR bags of vegetables (18 cups worth!) and that still only equals 27g of net carbs which is a strict, ketogenic level of carbohydrate.
72- it says 72 carbs
I don't care about your net carbs- I'm talking carbs. it's 72 carbs- that's not under 25.
I'm not hanging on to a prejudice- it's a reality of numbers.
I'm just in disbelief over the lack of condiments not even a sprinkle of salt.
0 -
ldrosophila wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Hey, if you're going to list "I can eat so many different veggies and still be low carb!" but it turns out you had mostly lettuce with a little slice of each of the other veggies (that are all higher in carb), it looks dishonest.
I could also say I had 10 rum+cokes and stayed under my calorie goal and wasn't even tipsy, because I used diet coke and split a single shot out over all 10 of them.
My diet isn't dishonest; it's what I eat. How 80g lettuce out of 600g-800g of vegetables equals "mostly" I do not know. I can only assume you learned math at the same school that taught reading comprehension.
What I actually said:
"That's really not true about the vegetables; if it's a priority even the lowest carb diets have room for fruits and vegetables."
"Low carb does not mean low vegetable -- that's a personal choice just like with any other macro split."
<snip> There is no way you're hitting under 20 carbs eating multiple servings of veggies a day- it's not happening. - not saying you cant' eat SOME- obviously that would be stupid. But if you're eating 2 bags of veggies at 3.5-4 servings a pop- you're not hitting an under 20.
Why anyone would hang onto their prejudice so hard is beyond me but... you can eat 2 bags of vegetables and still eat a low carb diet.
2 Bag of Broccoli (9 cups worth!) is 27g Total | 9g Net
2 Bags of Green Beans (9 cups worth!) is 45g Total | 18 Net
I can actually eat FOUR bags of vegetables (18 cups worth!) and that still only equals 27g of net carbs which is a strict, ketogenic level of carbohydrate.
72- it says 72 carbs
I don't care about your net carbs- I'm talking carbs. it's 72 carbs- that's not under 25.
I'm not hanging on to a prejudice- it's a reality of numbers.
I'm just in disbelief over the lack of condiments not even a sprinkle of salt.
a point well worth noting- but to be fair- they could just not log it- I never do. I should_ i use way more salt than any one should ever recommend. I'll be dead I'm sure in a year. but it's okay- least my food wasn't boring. LULZ.0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Hey, if you're going to list "I can eat so many different veggies and still be low carb!" but it turns out you had mostly lettuce with a little slice of each of the other veggies (that are all higher in carb), it looks dishonest.
I could also say I had 10 rum+cokes and stayed under my calorie goal and wasn't even tipsy, because I used diet coke and split a single shot out over all 10 of them.
My diet isn't dishonest; it's what I eat. How 80g lettuce out of 600g-800g of vegetables equals "mostly" I do not know. I can only assume you learned math at the same school that taught reading comprehension.
What I actually said:
"That's really not true about the vegetables; if it's a priority even the lowest carb diets have room for fruits and vegetables."
"Low carb does not mean low vegetable -- that's a personal choice just like with any other macro split."
<snip> There is no way you're hitting under 20 carbs eating multiple servings of veggies a day- it's not happening. - not saying you cant' eat SOME- obviously that would be stupid. But if you're eating 2 bags of veggies at 3.5-4 servings a pop- you're not hitting an under 20.
Why anyone would hang onto their prejudice so hard is beyond me but... you can eat 2 bags of vegetables and still eat a low carb diet.
2 Bag of Broccoli (9 cups worth!) is 27g Total | 9g Net
2 Bags of Green Beans (9 cups worth!) is 45g Total | 18 Net
I can actually eat FOUR bags of vegetables (18 cups worth!) and that still only equals 27g of net carbs which is a strict, ketogenic level of carbohydrate.
72- it says 72 carbs
I don't care about your net carbs- I'm talking carbs. it's 72 carbs- that's not under 25.
I'm not hanging on to a prejudice- it's a reality of numbers.
In a low carb diet discussion, yes, you do need to care about net carbs. See also page one, especially this:Are we talking American "total carbohydrates" here, which include fiber, or glycaemic / digested carbohydrates as used elsewhere. Atkins phase 1 is 20 grams a day of glycaemic carbs and many can adhere to that.
My breakfast was 5g of carbs. Often it's less than that.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »And you don't think it's dishonest to say "I'm low carb but I had bananas today" when you had less than half of one? And unless I've overlooked something that was the only piece of fruit you had the whole month.
Why is it expected to eat the whole banana? Why does the veg to lettuce ratio have to be something other than what appealed to the person eating it? Since I know the benefit of controlled hunger on Keto, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say he was too full to eat the other half of the banana. Cuz, ya know, when you eat very low carb you won't want to eat volumes of food. That's kind of one of the huge benefits and stuff.
What exactly is the point of arguing how much you all live to eat your carbs? Some don't. And when we say we don't miss it and literally eat over a pound of varying vegetables a day at Keto levels, and someone shows evidence, your next move is to argue the ratio of veggies in the salad? Hey, romaine lettuce is delicious!
There's nothing wrong with eating low carb or very low carb. And just about everyone that has ever tried it thought it was going to be the most impossible thing in the world to do. And a good majority of the ones that did it right found out that it really wasn't hard once you get going and gets easier and easier the longer you stick with it. So when people say "there's no way I could do it" sounds about as dumb as saying "there's no way I can exercise regularly".
As a matter of fact, where are all the MFP saviors trying to talk people out of hard exercise because they might sprain an ankle or something. Where are the people at trying to talk someone out of exercising because they found it too hard. After all you don't have to exercise to lose weight. Just like you don't have to low carb to lose weight.
But guess what?! Some people find that it enhances their weight loss. That it helps them stick with it because it makes losing weight easier. Is this sounding familiar yet?
Now jump off!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »My soft limit is 30g, although I try to keep it below 20g per day. I'll end today with 9g of net carbs. Granted, my portions right now are about half what they normally would be, so I'd still stay below 30g easily. I feel better without carbs, especially breads and pastas, and limiting those allows me to easily limit my calories without ever being hungry. It's that simple for me.
"Can't." teehee That's funny right there.
considering you're barely eating 1000 calories and you are barely eating any vegetables- it's not really a surprise.
A diet consisting mostly of cheese and meat isn't really carb laden- but no one who actually eats vegetables is going to be able to keep carbs that low. It's not happening.
I eat vegetables every day. My 3 month average total carbs is 38g. Since the veg have a fair amount of fiber my net carb average is around 20. It's insanely simple. That's the part people don't realize. Once you rid yourself of carbs, your body stops craving them. And someone else mentioned dairy as if it wouldn't fit into a low carb plan. That's true with some because many brands add sugar unnecessarily. You just don't buy those brands. I used to think it was crazy too... When I still ate carbs.
What do you mean by craving?
I wouldn't say I crave "carbs." I'd say I enjoy a number of carbs (largely fruit, vegetables, but also potatoes and sweet potatoes, fresh corn in season, etc.) and sometimes feel in the mood for them or look forward to eating my planned servings of them at dinner, as with any other foods I eat. I doubt the ability to enjoy carbs in this way would go away if I did keto, and I don't see why anyone would want it to (unless the goal IS to eat crazy low calories, like the person eating below 1000).
However, I do find that I perceive a real difference in athletic performance, energy when running or biking or lifting depending on the amount of carbs I'm consuming. This is so even if I run fasted as I often do in the morning -- I perform better if I had a normal (for me) amount of carbs the day before vs. a lower carb day.
I don't feel like I perform badly when I am lower carb -- I probably wouldn't notice it, except that I do feel better when I up the carbs. This is actually why I'm considering forcing myself to try 50% for a while to see if it also makes a difference.
Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that this too could be perceived as my body craving carbs -- I know I naturally tend to eat lower carb when I'm less active and am more likely to feel in the mood for some potatoes or rice when I'm more active.
I don't see that as a bad thing, but as my body telling me what it needs.
1) "What do you mean by craving?"
Having a strong desire to eat a certain food. The kind where you can even want it when you just ate a short time ago. And if you eat something else instead you end up still wanting the original thing anyway.
2) "I doubt the ability to enjoy carbs in this way would go away if I did keto,
Well, I guess you'll never know. But if you did Keto, you wouldn't be cooking a high carb food to look forward to... You'd be looking forward to the low carb food you were cooking... I mean... So you'd have the same exact life and experience with looking forward to your dinner. It's not like we low carbers are like "Damn! I'm having bacon wrapped scallops and buttered asparagus again! Ugh! IHML!"
3) "and I don't see why anyone would want it to (unless the goal IS to eat crazy low calories, like the person eating below 1000)."
It may come as a big surprise to you, but lots of overweight people have trouble not eating too much food. I don't mean they ate a couple hundred calories over a week or even a day. I mean eating a thousand or more extra calories a week. They are generally eating when they think they are hungry or have a craving or have trouble stopping at a reasonable portion usually because the food is good but maybe not particularly filling. These people are all over these boards. You'd be hard pressed to find ones that haven't had this experience at some point in their life.
By your comment you seem to understand that Keto does help a person eat less. That it makes it fairly easy to do. So much so that it seems you acknowledge someone could significantly under eat in this way fairly simply. Well, here's another big surprise for you, lots of people need help controlling hunger so that they can be successful eating what is considered a safe deficit or even to be able to eat at maintenance. So trying to eat "crazy low calories" is actually amazingly uncommon in LC circles, also it's because we eat this way for health so... kinda defeats the purpose.
4) "I perceive a real difference in athletic performance, energy when running or biking or lifting depending on the amount of carbs I'm consuming."
I'm not an athletic person and I'm generally not into sports, but I am aware that there are big benefits for endurance sports to fat adapted people. I did just read an article about an ultramarathoner named Dean Karnazes who eats a paleo diet. He ran 350 miles in 80 hours and 44 minutes. People that are active at these levels eat more carbs than I do and certainly more than even you do but it is done specifically for the run.
5) "I don't see that as a bad thing, but as my body telling me what it need."
Are you under the impression that low carbers do see perfectly healthy people eating and even wanting to eat carbs as a bad thing? Is that why all the attacks on low carb eating as a way of life is constantly challenged and discouraged and all the same old misinformation about not eating vegetables or dairy keeps going around?
Everybody can relax. We aren't here to take away your potatoes or your cake and ice cream. We just wanted to get rid of ours and help anyone else interested in doing the same work through the sea of bad information so that they may finally find success with cutting calories for weight loss or managing health issues after failing when trying it the SAD diet way.
When somebody says their life is better without these foods try not to feel like you're being attacked because you're not. That statement isn't about you.0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »My soft limit is 30g, although I try to keep it below 20g per day. I'll end today with 9g of net carbs. Granted, my portions right now are about half what they normally would be, so I'd still stay below 30g easily. I feel better without carbs, especially breads and pastas, and limiting those allows me to easily limit my calories without ever being hungry. It's that simple for me.
"Can't." teehee That's funny right there.
considering you're barely eating 1000 calories and you are barely eating any vegetables- it's not really a surprise.
A diet consisting mostly of cheese and meat isn't really carb laden- but no one who actually eats vegetables is going to be able to keep carbs that low. It's not happening.
I eat vegetables every day. My 3 month average total carbs is 38g. Since the veg have a fair amount of fiber my net carb average is around 20. It's insanely simple. That's the part people don't realize. Once you rid yourself of carbs, your body stops craving them. And someone else mentioned dairy as if it wouldn't fit into a low carb plan. That's true with some because many brands add sugar unnecessarily. You just don't buy those brands. I used to think it was crazy too... When I still ate carbs.
What do you mean by craving?
I wouldn't say I crave "carbs." I'd say I enjoy a number of carbs (largely fruit, vegetables, but also potatoes and sweet potatoes, fresh corn in season, etc.) and sometimes feel in the mood for them or look forward to eating my planned servings of them at dinner, as with any other foods I eat. I doubt the ability to enjoy carbs in this way would go away if I did keto, and I don't see why anyone would want it to (unless the goal IS to eat crazy low calories, like the person eating below 1000).
However, I do find that I perceive a real difference in athletic performance, energy when running or biking or lifting depending on the amount of carbs I'm consuming. This is so even if I run fasted as I often do in the morning -- I perform better if I had a normal (for me) amount of carbs the day before vs. a lower carb day.
I don't feel like I perform badly when I am lower carb -- I probably wouldn't notice it, except that I do feel better when I up the carbs. This is actually why I'm considering forcing myself to try 50% for a while to see if it also makes a difference.
Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that this too could be perceived as my body craving carbs -- I know I naturally tend to eat lower carb when I'm less active and am more likely to feel in the mood for some potatoes or rice when I'm more active.
I don't see that as a bad thing, but as my body telling me what it needs.
1) "What do you mean by craving?"
Having a strong desire to eat a certain food. The kind where you can even want it when you just ate a short time ago. And if you eat something else instead you end up still wanting the original thing anyway.
Okay. I just wanted to find out if the way my body seems to want/respond to carbs in connection with physical activity was related to what you are talking about.
I don't have a problem with cravings in the sense you mean. I sometimes experience them and so work the food in, but it's not carb-specific or anything that presents a problem to happiness/meeting my calorie goal. I'm assuming they did for you, or you wouldn't speak of getting rid of them as a good thing.2) "I doubt the ability to enjoy carbs in this way would go away if I did keto,
Well, I guess you'll never know.
Well, I could do keto, obviously! The broader point is that if a craving is looking forward to and enjoying a food I like, why would I want that to go away?But if you did Keto, you wouldn't be cooking a high carb food to look forward to... You'd be looking forward to the low carb food you were cooking... I mean... So you'd have the same exact life and experience with looking forward to your dinner. It's not like we low carbers are like "Damn! I'm having bacon wrapped scallops and buttered asparagus again! Ugh! IHML!"
No, I get this, and you'll never find a post from me where I suggest that low carbers are miserable or don't enjoy their food.
I like fat and hate low fat diets, but it seems do not prioritize fat as much as many low carbers (the high fat meals that get mentioned appeal to me much less than a balanced meal with some potatoes and lots and lots of veggies). That means nothing except that low carb is likely not the correct choice for me. I often say that taste preferences and satiation are reasons someone might prefer/benefit from low carb.
The craving thing seemed to be thrown out there as a positive and we all experience cravings from time to time, so I just wanted to explore it more. I don't see cravings -- as in looking forward to and anticipating foods -- as something to want to get rid of, as this is part of my overall enjoyment of foods. So often, and in some of the posts above, it seems like a benefit of keto is supposed to be that you stop wanting to eat or thinking about foods, and for me that would be a bad thing. Sure, it would be easier to not gain weight if I had no interest in food, but I'd rather keep the interest/enjoyment in food. (Not saying you don't have it, but referring to the posts on "you won't ever think about food" or the person saying it's so easy to stay under 1200, which is not a goal I think most should have.)3) "and I don't see why anyone would want it to (unless the goal IS to eat crazy low calories, like the person eating below 1000)."
It may come as a big surprise to you, but lots of overweight people have trouble not eating too much food. I don't mean they ate a couple hundred calories over a week or even a day. I mean eating a thousand or more extra calories a week. They are generally eating when they think they are hungry or have a craving or have trouble stopping at a reasonable portion usually because the food is good but maybe not particularly filling. These people are all over these boards. You'd be hard pressed to find ones that haven't had this experience at some point in their life.
I actually don't think that real hunger is the driver for most overweight people, and even when it is I think it can be fixed for most by sensible changes in food choice. I don't think "getting rid of the desire to eat" is something that needs to happen. (And most overweight people probably DID get fat eating a couple of hundred over a week, they just kept increasing their calories as they got fatter in many cases. It's really easy to eat lots of extra calories without seeming to eat huge amounts or just by having a few indulgent meals in the week.)
I do think hunger is an issue for some and that keto is helpful for this (and so are other forms of low carb and so can changing the balance of the diet to reduce low fiber carbs or some kinds of excess fat and increasing protein, although it really depends on the person. I find adding oil in greater quantities to my food and cream and the like don't do a thing for my hunger, whereas others have different experiences.)By your comment you seem to understand that Keto does help a person eat less.
Some people, at least.
And I accept that it likely does have an appetite killing effect on most. (I'm just questioning whether that should be portrayed as an unreserved good.)That it makes it fairly easy to do. So much so that it seems you acknowledge someone could significantly under eat in this way fairly simply. Well, here's another big surprise for you, lots of people need help controlling hunger so that they can be successful eating what is considered a safe deficit or even to be able to eat at maintenance. So trying to eat "crazy low calories" is actually amazingly uncommon in LC circles, also it's because we eat this way for health so... kinda defeats the purpose.
Again, you seem more defensive here than is warranted. I agree there are reasons it's a good plan for some people. I am concerned that it is being presented as desirable for all (when I don't think it is) and am questioning the premise that killing the appetite and allowing someone to eat crazy low calories (under 1200) is a good thing. IMO, eating under 1200 (let alone under 1000) is only very rarely a good thing, so presenting it as a positive, as a reason to do keto just rings warning bells that it's being used in some cases to enable rather worrisome eating.
Again, most people I know who do keto don't do this; they eat normal calories for dieters (not much different than what I do or did). So this is not supposed to be a slam on keto or all who do it, but expressing a concern about interest in food being considered a bad thing that ideally would go away in the context of cutting calories really low.I'm not an athletic person and I'm generally not into sports, but I am aware that there are big benefits for endurance sports to fat adapted people.
This is a really specific context -- extremely long, quite slow activity vs. more intense things. If keto (different from fat adapted -- lots of us who aren't keto are perfectly capable of using fat for energy during long slow endurance activities) were as suited to sport as is claimed it would be a strategy that more used. But the point was not to say you can't be active on low carb but that the body may crave carbs in a sense related to training and again that this is not something I think is bad or that you would want to go away. It was about the question of "what specifically do you mean by craving."5) "I don't see that as a bad thing, but as my body telling me what it need."
Are you under the impression that low carbers do see perfectly healthy people eating and even wanting to eat carbs as a bad thing?
Yes, that's the impression I get from a lot of these posts -- that all of us are supposed to see having our desire to eat carbs go away or being able to stick to below 1200 calories, etc., as a positive thing.Is that why all the attacks on low carb eating as a way of life is constantly challenged and discouraged and all the same old misinformation about not eating vegetables or dairy keeps going around?
(1) I don't think low carb is attacked on this forum much. For example, I consistently say that low carb is a great choice for some and that anyone interested in lowering their carbs should experiment with it. I just also say it's not necessary for weight loss and isn't right for everyone. The current trend is low carb (has been for a while) so lots of people show up assuming that you need to go low carb to lose weight, and of course it's not true, although it can be helpful to some (and is something I'd throw out as a possibility for someone struggling with hunger even after trying sensible changes to food choice and timing, etc.).
(2) I do think some low carbers (not the majority) push low carb as inherently better for all, "healthier" and so on, and I also think that some low carbers poo-poo the importance of eating vegetables and even suggest that a diet may be healthier with no fruit (or very little) and without many vegetables. I have never said that low carbers (even keto) can't eat vegetables, as I get the net carb thing. (That said, lettuce isn't a particularly nutritious vegetable and it would drive me crazy to have to worry about the carbs in my vegetables, and some have quite a few, like brussels sprouts, although I haven't run the net numbers.)
Anyway, I generally assume low carbers eat vegetables unless they tell me otherwise or promote not having to eat many vegetables as a selling point of low carb to newbies, which IS something I've seen more lately from a few posters.When somebody says their life is better without these foods try not to feel like you're being attacked because you're not. That statement isn't about you.
?? This seems pretty rude and uncalled for given my actual posts here. I didn't suggest that low carb was a bad idea or that I felt attacked at all. I do think low carbers sometimes start posting as if the benefits they experienced are ones that everyone should seek out so it's worth pointing out that they are not applicable to many of us.
I really wish we could stop using words like "attack" and the like so frivolously and over-dramatically. People can have different opinions about diet -- or even, like me, think different diets work better for different people -- without it being an "attack." That someone doesn't agree with you (and I'm not even sure we are disagreeing that much) doesn't mean they are "attacking" you or feeling "attacked."0 -
Low carb to me would be under 100g a day. I typically carb cycle between 125/175/225 and on the low day it can be challenging but it is certainly doable.0
-
kshama2001 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Hey, if you're going to list "I can eat so many different veggies and still be low carb!" but it turns out you had mostly lettuce with a little slice of each of the other veggies (that are all higher in carb), it looks dishonest.
I could also say I had 10 rum+cokes and stayed under my calorie goal and wasn't even tipsy, because I used diet coke and split a single shot out over all 10 of them.
My diet isn't dishonest; it's what I eat. How 80g lettuce out of 600g-800g of vegetables equals "mostly" I do not know. I can only assume you learned math at the same school that taught reading comprehension.
What I actually said:
"That's really not true about the vegetables; if it's a priority even the lowest carb diets have room for fruits and vegetables."
"Low carb does not mean low vegetable -- that's a personal choice just like with any other macro split."
<snip> There is no way you're hitting under 20 carbs eating multiple servings of veggies a day- it's not happening. - not saying you cant' eat SOME- obviously that would be stupid. But if you're eating 2 bags of veggies at 3.5-4 servings a pop- you're not hitting an under 20.
Why anyone would hang onto their prejudice so hard is beyond me but... you can eat 2 bags of vegetables and still eat a low carb diet.
2 Bag of Broccoli (9 cups worth!) is 27g Total | 9g Net
2 Bags of Green Beans (9 cups worth!) is 45g Total | 18 Net
I can actually eat FOUR bags of vegetables (18 cups worth!) and that still only equals 27g of net carbs which is a strict, ketogenic level of carbohydrate.
72- it says 72 carbs
I don't care about your net carbs- I'm talking carbs. it's 72 carbs- that's not under 25.
I'm not hanging on to a prejudice- it's a reality of numbers.
In a low carb diet discussion, yes, you do need to care about net carbs. See also page one, especially this:Are we talking American "total carbohydrates" here, which include fiber, or glycaemic / digested carbohydrates as used elsewhere. Atkins phase 1 is 20 grams a day of glycaemic carbs and many can adhere to that.
My breakfast was 5g of carbs. Often it's less than that.
if it makes you happy to see it that way- delusional as it may be.-1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »My soft limit is 30g, although I try to keep it below 20g per day. I'll end today with 9g of net carbs. Granted, my portions right now are about half what they normally would be, so I'd still stay below 30g easily. I feel better without carbs, especially breads and pastas, and limiting those allows me to easily limit my calories without ever being hungry. It's that simple for me.
"Can't." teehee That's funny right there.
considering you're barely eating 1000 calories and you are barely eating any vegetables- it's not really a surprise.
A diet consisting mostly of cheese and meat isn't really carb laden- but no one who actually eats vegetables is going to be able to keep carbs that low. It's not happening.
I eat vegetables every day. My 3 month average total carbs is 38g. Since the veg have a fair amount of fiber my net carb average is around 20. It's insanely simple. That's the part people don't realize. Once you rid yourself of carbs, your body stops craving them. And someone else mentioned dairy as if it wouldn't fit into a low carb plan. That's true with some because many brands add sugar unnecessarily. You just don't buy those brands. I used to think it was crazy too... When I still ate carbs.
What do you mean by craving?
I wouldn't say I crave "carbs." I'd say I enjoy a number of carbs (largely fruit, vegetables, but also potatoes and sweet potatoes, fresh corn in season, etc.) and sometimes feel in the mood for them or look forward to eating my planned servings of them at dinner, as with any other foods I eat. I doubt the ability to enjoy carbs in this way would go away if I did keto, and I don't see why anyone would want it to (unless the goal IS to eat crazy low calories, like the person eating below 1000).
However, I do find that I perceive a real difference in athletic performance, energy when running or biking or lifting depending on the amount of carbs I'm consuming. This is so even if I run fasted as I often do in the morning -- I perform better if I had a normal (for me) amount of carbs the day before vs. a lower carb day.
I don't feel like I perform badly when I am lower carb -- I probably wouldn't notice it, except that I do feel better when I up the carbs. This is actually why I'm considering forcing myself to try 50% for a while to see if it also makes a difference.
Anyway, the reason I bring this up is that this too could be perceived as my body craving carbs -- I know I naturally tend to eat lower carb when I'm less active and am more likely to feel in the mood for some potatoes or rice when I'm more active.
I don't see that as a bad thing, but as my body telling me what it needs.
1) "What do you mean by craving?"
Having a strong desire to eat a certain food. The kind where you can even want it when you just ate a short time ago. And if you eat something else instead you end up still wanting the original thing anyway.
Okay. I just wanted to find out if the way my body seems to want/respond to carbs in connection with physical activity was related to what you are talking about.
I don't have a problem with cravings in the sense you mean. I sometimes experience them and so work the food in, but it's not carb-specific or anything that presents a problem to happiness/meeting my calorie goal. I'm assuming they did for you, or you wouldn't speak of getting rid of them as a good thing.2) "I doubt the ability to enjoy carbs in this way would go away if I did keto,
Well, I guess you'll never know.
Well, I could do keto, obviously! The broader point is that if a craving is looking forward to and enjoying a food I like, why would I want that to go away?But if you did Keto, you wouldn't be cooking a high carb food to look forward to... You'd be looking forward to the low carb food you were cooking... I mean... So you'd have the same exact life and experience with looking forward to your dinner. It's not like we low carbers are like "Damn! I'm having bacon wrapped scallops and buttered asparagus again! Ugh! IHML!"
No, I get this, and you'll never find a post from me where I suggest that low carbers are miserable or don't enjoy their food.
I like fat and hate low fat diets, but it seems do not prioritize fat as much as many low carbers (the high fat meals that get mentioned appeal to me much less than a balanced meal with some potatoes and lots and lots of veggies). That means nothing except that low carb is likely not the correct choice for me. I often say that taste preferences and satiation are reasons someone might prefer/benefit from low carb.
The craving thing seemed to be thrown out there as a positive and we all experience cravings from time to time, so I just wanted to explore it more. I don't see cravings -- as in looking forward to and anticipating foods -- as something to want to get rid of, as this is part of my overall enjoyment of foods. So often, and in some of the posts above, it seems like a benefit of keto is supposed to be that you stop wanting to eat or thinking about foods, and for me that would be a bad thing. Sure, it would be easier to not gain weight if I had no interest in food, but I'd rather keep the interest/enjoyment in food. (Not saying you don't have it, but referring to the posts on "you won't ever think about food" or the person saying it's so easy to stay under 1200, which is not a goal I think most should have.)3) "and I don't see why anyone would want it to (unless the goal IS to eat crazy low calories, like the person eating below 1000)."
It may come as a big surprise to you, but lots of overweight people have trouble not eating too much food. I don't mean they ate a couple hundred calories over a week or even a day. I mean eating a thousand or more extra calories a week. They are generally eating when they think they are hungry or have a craving or have trouble stopping at a reasonable portion usually because the food is good but maybe not particularly filling. These people are all over these boards. You'd be hard pressed to find ones that haven't had this experience at some point in their life.
I actually don't think that real hunger is the driver for most overweight people, and even when it is I think it can be fixed for most by sensible changes in food choice. I don't think "getting rid of the desire to eat" is something that needs to happen. (And most overweight people probably DID get fat eating a couple of hundred over a week, they just kept increasing their calories as they got fatter in many cases. It's really easy to eat lots of extra calories without seeming to eat huge amounts or just by having a few indulgent meals in the week.)
I do think hunger is an issue for some and that keto is helpful for this (and so are other forms of low carb and so can changing the balance of the diet to reduce low fiber carbs or some kinds of excess fat and increasing protein, although it really depends on the person. I find adding oil in greater quantities to my food and cream and the like don't do a thing for my hunger, whereas others have different experiences.)By your comment you seem to understand that Keto does help a person eat less.
Some people, at least.
And I accept that it likely does have an appetite killing effect on most. (I'm just questioning whether that should be portrayed as an unreserved good.)That it makes it fairly easy to do. So much so that it seems you acknowledge someone could significantly under eat in this way fairly simply. Well, here's another big surprise for you, lots of people need help controlling hunger so that they can be successful eating what is considered a safe deficit or even to be able to eat at maintenance. So trying to eat "crazy low calories" is actually amazingly uncommon in LC circles, also it's because we eat this way for health so... kinda defeats the purpose.
Again, you seem more defensive here than is warranted. I agree there are reasons it's a good plan for some people. I am concerned that it is being presented as desirable for all (when I don't think it is) and am questioning the premise that killing the appetite and allowing someone to eat crazy low calories (under 1200) is a good thing. IMO, eating under 1200 (let alone under 1000) is only very rarely a good thing, so presenting it as a positive, as a reason to do keto just rings warning bells that it's being used in some cases to enable rather worrisome eating.
Again, most people I know who do keto don't do this; they eat normal calories for dieters (not much different than what I do or did). So this is not supposed to be a slam on keto or all who do it, but expressing a concern about interest in food being considered a bad thing that ideally would go away in the context of cutting calories really low.I'm not an athletic person and I'm generally not into sports, but I am aware that there are big benefits for endurance sports to fat adapted people.
This is a really specific context -- extremely long, quite slow activity vs. more intense things. If keto (different from fat adapted -- lots of us who aren't keto are perfectly capable of using fat for energy during long slow endurance activities) were as suited to sport as is claimed it would be a strategy that more used. But the point was not to say you can't be active on low carb but that the body may crave carbs in a sense related to training and again that this is not something I think is bad or that you would want to go away. It was about the question of "what specifically do you mean by craving."5) "I don't see that as a bad thing, but as my body telling me what it need."
Are you under the impression that low carbers do see perfectly healthy people eating and even wanting to eat carbs as a bad thing?
Yes, that's the impression I get from a lot of these posts -- that all of us are supposed to see having our desire to eat carbs go away or being able to stick to below 1200 calories, etc., as a positive thing.Is that why all the attacks on low carb eating as a way of life is constantly challenged and discouraged and all the same old misinformation about not eating vegetables or dairy keeps going around?
(1) I don't think low carb is attacked on this forum much. For example, I consistently say that low carb is a great choice for some and that anyone interested in lowering their carbs should experiment with it. I just also say it's not necessary for weight loss and isn't right for everyone. The current trend is low carb (has been for a while) so lots of people show up assuming that you need to go low carb to lose weight, and of course it's not true, although it can be helpful to some (and is something I'd throw out as a possibility for someone struggling with hunger even after trying sensible changes to food choice and timing, etc.).
(2) I do think some low carbers (not the majority) push low carb as inherently better for all, "healthier" and so on, and I also think that some low carbers poo-poo the importance of eating vegetables and even suggest that a diet may be healthier with no fruit (or very little) and without many vegetables. I have never said that low carbers (even keto) can't eat vegetables, as I get the net carb thing. (That said, lettuce isn't a particularly nutritious vegetable and it would drive me crazy to have to worry about the carbs in my vegetables, and some have quite a few, like brussels sprouts, although I haven't run the net numbers.)
Anyway, I generally assume low carbers eat vegetables unless they tell me otherwise or promote not having to eat many vegetables as a selling point of low carb to newbies, which IS something I've seen more lately from a few posters.When somebody says their life is better without these foods try not to feel like you're being attacked because you're not. That statement isn't about you.
?? This seems pretty rude and uncalled for given my actual posts here. I didn't suggest that low carb was a bad idea or that I felt attacked at all. I do think low carbers sometimes start posting as if the benefits they experienced are ones that everyone should seek out so it's worth pointing out that they are not applicable to many of us.
I really wish we could stop using words like "attack" and the like so frivolously and over-dramatically. People can have different opinions about diet -- or even, like me, think different diets work better for different people -- without it being an "attack." That someone doesn't agree with you (and I'm not even sure we are disagreeing that much) doesn't mean they are "attacking" you or feeling "attacked."
I only have a minute to make a response so I can't be very thorough.
I replied to your post specifically because I felt like your question and other points covered different areas that often come up all in one post.
I didn't feel that you were being particularly ugly toward low carb. I did get defensive, as I am defending my way of eating because it's great for me and lots of other people. And It's hard to separate when replying like that what is directly answering your question and what is just elaborating on other things I felt needed to be said for the general audience. I actually thought about making a separate post so you didn't think my comments at the end were directed at you but... I just kept writing. I apologize because sounding rude wasn't my intention.
I know you feel low carb doesn't get attacked but I definitely feel it does. I actually avoid the main forums for this exact reason. As soon as one of us corrects a misleading or downright wrong statement, the full heated debate begins.
And the idea that people lose all interest in food is said so dramatically, probably only by people that were confined with thoughts of eating and cravings that created problematic overeating. It doesn't mean we don't get hungry. It doesn't mean we aren't happy and getting enjoyment when we eat. Those statements are probably made by people that struggled with it for many many years.
Telling a chronic overeater with serious appetite control issues to simply eat smaller sensible meals is probably not going to help them. If someone is considering low carb in the first place it's probably because they either want to lower their insulin response significantly and immediately or other health issue or they have heard that it makes appetite control better. When we chime in supporting these people, we are constantly made to defend this way of eating. Since eating smaller sensible meals is the standard diet we've heard all our lives, we pretty much assume that people already understand that eating less is generally how it works and that they know a person can eat carbs and lose weight, but I also think they must find something about low carb appealing for a reason.
Anyway, this is how every post about low carb turns out.
Constantly being defended and explaining our reasoning. It's rather exhausting.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »<snip> That said, lettuce isn't a particularly nutritious vegetable...
It might not be particularly nutritious (I have no idea if it is or isn't) but it is nutritious. A serving of romaine (85g) is only 14 calories and provides 148% vitamin A, 109% Vitamin K and 29% Folate among other things.
"It is also a good source of Riboflavin, Vitamin B6, Calcium, Magnesium, Phosphorus and Copper, and a very good source of Dietary Fiber, Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin K, Thiamin, Folate, Iron, Potassium and Manganese." Source
Only on MFP would eating lettuce be worthy of this much commentary.
0 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »Anyway, this is how every post about low carb turns out.
Constantly being defended and explaining our reasoning. It's rather exhausting.
Exactly this.
0 -
if it makes you happy to see it that way- delusional as it may be.
Delusional ? The rest of the planet generally measures carbohydrates and reports them as such, doing the same separately for fibre.
"Total carbohydrates by difference" are largely confined to North America, I have never seen their attraction beyond saving money on analysis.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions