Have you tried high fat low carb diet ?
Options
Replies
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
And if you're allergic to peanuts it might be a good idea to lay off peanut butter. Does everyone really have to always put a disclaimer at the end saying "*unless you have a medical condition that necessitate otherwise" ?
The problem is that IR, prediabetes, and T2 diabetes are far more common than peanut butter allergy, and many people are undiagnosed
And the OP hasn't mentioned that he had any medicals, so why is that even important to this conversation? If someone has a medical issues, the information is generally tailored to that person, which is commonly demonstrated with someone says they have IR, PCOS, hypothyroidism, etc... And considering how lean the OP is (if that is a current picture), it's even more unlikely he would have any of those issues (unless genetics).
OP, I agree with tennisdude, that you should give it a month or so. It also might help if you slowly drop carbs to allow your body to get used to a lower amount. Sometimes just jumping right in can adversely affect things.
what part of "undiagnosed" you don't understand?
I understand it quite well. Do you understand how statistics are developed? Because if we went by all the statistics out there, over 100% of the world would have some kind of medical issue. Many are extrapolations based on various assumptions to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research.
Well, that's a legitimate point of view, of course.
Is, in your opinion, the obesity epidemic real, or just made up "to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research"?0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
And if you're allergic to peanuts it might be a good idea to lay off peanut butter. Does everyone really have to always put a disclaimer at the end saying "*unless you have a medical condition that necessitate otherwise" ?
The problem is that IR, prediabetes, and T2 diabetes are far more common than peanut butter allergy, and many people are undiagnosed
And the OP hasn't mentioned that he had any medicals, so why is that even important to this conversation? If someone has a medical issues, the information is generally tailored to that person, which is commonly demonstrated with someone says they have IR, PCOS, hypothyroidism, etc... And considering how lean the OP is (if that is a current picture), it's even more unlikely he would have any of those issues (unless genetics).
OP, I agree with tennisdude, that you should give it a month or so. It also might help if you slowly drop carbs to allow your body to get used to a lower amount. Sometimes just jumping right in can adversely affect things.
what part of "undiagnosed" you don't understand?
I understand it quite well. Do you understand how statistics are developed? Because if we went by all the statistics out there, over 100% of the world would have some kind of medical issue. Many are extrapolations based on various assumptions to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research.
Well, that's a legitimate point of view, of course.
Is, in your opinion, the obesity epidemic real, or just made up "to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research"?
I didn't know you could be undiagnosed obese. How does that happen?0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
And if you're allergic to peanuts it might be a good idea to lay off peanut butter. Does everyone really have to always put a disclaimer at the end saying "*unless you have a medical condition that necessitate otherwise" ?
The problem is that IR, prediabetes, and T2 diabetes are far more common than peanut butter allergy, and many people are undiagnosed
And the OP hasn't mentioned that he had any medicals, so why is that even important to this conversation? If someone has a medical issues, the information is generally tailored to that person, which is commonly demonstrated with someone says they have IR, PCOS, hypothyroidism, etc... And considering how lean the OP is (if that is a current picture), it's even more unlikely he would have any of those issues (unless genetics).
OP, I agree with tennisdude, that you should give it a month or so. It also might help if you slowly drop carbs to allow your body to get used to a lower amount. Sometimes just jumping right in can adversely affect things.
what part of "undiagnosed" you don't understand?
I understand it quite well. Do you understand how statistics are developed? Because if we went by all the statistics out there, over 100% of the world would have some kind of medical issue. Many are extrapolations based on various assumptions to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research.
Well, that's a legitimate point of view, of course.
Is, in your opinion, the obesity epidemic real, or just made up "to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research"?
Again that doesn't apply to this thread. At some point, people need to take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of getting lost in minute details.
And so far, in the context of this discussion, there is NO reason to address medical issues. He asked about a particular way of eating because of some issue with losing weight. It's probably more beneficial to address the bigger and more typical issues that generally occur on here... is the OP logging, are they using the food scale, how many calories are they eating, what is their exercise routine, etc...
Or do you propose they we assume everyone has an undiagnosed medical issue?
0 -
The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more.
I don't know where people got the 0.35 g or lower figures from.I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
I was talking about normal, healthy individuals without allergies, complications, medical issues, etc.
It seems that people think that being afflicted with some sort of illness is the norm around here.
Low carb / Atkins is a fad diet... as is any diet that restricts whole foods, entire food groups, and macros in an effort to claim that following the fad diet caused your weight loss -- No... plain and simple it was heeding a caloric deficit, increased activity, or both that caused any such weight loss.-1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
And if you're allergic to peanuts it might be a good idea to lay off peanut butter. Does everyone really have to always put a disclaimer at the end saying "*unless you have a medical condition that necessitate otherwise" ?
The problem is that IR, prediabetes, and T2 diabetes are far more common than peanut butter allergy, and many people are undiagnosed
And the OP hasn't mentioned that he had any medicals, so why is that even important to this conversation? If someone has a medical issues, the information is generally tailored to that person, which is commonly demonstrated with someone says they have IR, PCOS, hypothyroidism, etc... And considering how lean the OP is (if that is a current picture), it's even more unlikely he would have any of those issues (unless genetics).
OP, I agree with tennisdude, that you should give it a month or so. It also might help if you slowly drop carbs to allow your body to get used to a lower amount. Sometimes just jumping right in can adversely affect things.
what part of "undiagnosed" you don't understand?
I understand it quite well. Do you understand how statistics are developed? Because if we went by all the statistics out there, over 100% of the world would have some kind of medical issue. Many are extrapolations based on various assumptions to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research.
Well, that's a legitimate point of view, of course.
Is, in your opinion, the obesity epidemic real, or just made up "to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research"?
Again that doesn't apply to this thread. At some point, people need to take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of getting lost in minute details.
And so far, in the context of this discussion, there is NO reason to address medical issues. He asked about a particular way of eating because of some issue with losing weight. It's probably more beneficial to address the bigger and more typical issues that generally occur on here... is the OP logging, are they using the food scale, how many calories are they eating, what is their exercise routine, etc...
Or do you propose they we assume everyone has an undiagnosed medical issue?
I agree with you on the bolded. Once you get sure you log everything correctly, shifting your macro breakdown and/or address your dietary choices is the most reasonable thing to do: whole picture, indeed.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
And if you're allergic to peanuts it might be a good idea to lay off peanut butter. Does everyone really have to always put a disclaimer at the end saying "*unless you have a medical condition that necessitate otherwise" ?
No, but I also think metabolism differs from person to person. And it's pretty clear that Low Carb High Fat benefits people with any level of insulin resistance most. It's not all about the weight loss.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
And if you're allergic to peanuts it might be a good idea to lay off peanut butter. Does everyone really have to always put a disclaimer at the end saying "*unless you have a medical condition that necessitate otherwise" ?
The problem is that IR, prediabetes, and T2 diabetes are far more common than peanut butter allergy, and many people are undiagnosed
And the OP hasn't mentioned that he had any medicals, so why is that even important to this conversation? If someone has a medical issues, the information is generally tailored to that person, which is commonly demonstrated with someone says they have IR, PCOS, hypothyroidism, etc... And considering how lean the OP is (if that is a current picture), it's even more unlikely he would have any of those issues (unless genetics).
OP, I agree with tennisdude, that you should give it a month or so. It also might help if you slowly drop carbs to allow your body to get used to a lower amount. Sometimes just jumping right in can adversely affect things.
what part of "undiagnosed" you don't understand?
I understand it quite well. Do you understand how statistics are developed? Because if we went by all the statistics out there, over 100% of the world would have some kind of medical issue. Many are extrapolations based on various assumptions to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research.
Well, that's a legitimate point of view, of course.
Is, in your opinion, the obesity epidemic real, or just made up "to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research"?
Again that doesn't apply to this thread. At some point, people need to take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of getting lost in minute details.
And so far, in the context of this discussion, there is NO reason to address medical issues. He asked about a particular way of eating because of some issue with losing weight. It's probably more beneficial to address the bigger and more typical issues that generally occur on here... is the OP logging, are they using the food scale, how many calories are they eating, what is their exercise routine, etc...
Or do you propose they we assume everyone has an undiagnosed medical issue?
Insulin resistance is not a "medical issue", diagnosed or otherwise: by now it is a common place occurrence for about 1/3 of populations in countries that are on a standard western, industrialized diet. And in some sub segments of the populations about 50% of people can be insulin resistant.
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
And if you're allergic to peanuts it might be a good idea to lay off peanut butter. Does everyone really have to always put a disclaimer at the end saying "*unless you have a medical condition that necessitate otherwise" ?
The problem is that IR, prediabetes, and T2 diabetes are far more common than peanut butter allergy, and many people are undiagnosed
And the OP hasn't mentioned that he had any medicals, so why is that even important to this conversation? If someone has a medical issues, the information is generally tailored to that person, which is commonly demonstrated with someone says they have IR, PCOS, hypothyroidism, etc... And considering how lean the OP is (if that is a current picture), it's even more unlikely he would have any of those issues (unless genetics).
OP, I agree with tennisdude, that you should give it a month or so. It also might help if you slowly drop carbs to allow your body to get used to a lower amount. Sometimes just jumping right in can adversely affect things.
what part of "undiagnosed" you don't understand?
I understand it quite well. Do you understand how statistics are developed? Because if we went by all the statistics out there, over 100% of the world would have some kind of medical issue. Many are extrapolations based on various assumptions to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research.
Well, that's a legitimate point of view, of course.
Is, in your opinion, the obesity epidemic real, or just made up "to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research"?
Again that doesn't apply to this thread. At some point, people need to take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of getting lost in minute details.
And so far, in the context of this discussion, there is NO reason to address medical issues. He asked about a particular way of eating because of some issue with losing weight. It's probably more beneficial to address the bigger and more typical issues that generally occur on here... is the OP logging, are they using the food scale, how many calories are they eating, what is their exercise routine, etc...
Or do you propose they we assume everyone has an undiagnosed medical issue?
Insulin resistance is not a "medical issue", diagnosed or otherwise: by now it is a common place occurrence for about 1/3 of populations in countries that are on a standard western, industrialized diet. And in some sub segments of the populations about 50% of people can be insulin resistant.
Can you actually substantiate those claims?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I didn't know you could be undiagnosed obese. How does that happen?
Stay off the scale :-)
0 -
The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more.
I don't know where people got the 0.35 g or lower figures from.I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
I was talking about normal, healthy individuals without allergies, complications, medical issues, etc.
It seems that people think that being afflicted with some sort of illness is the norm around here.
Low carb / Atkins is a fad diet... as is any diet that restricts whole foods, entire food groups, and macros in an effort to claim that following the fad diet caused your weight loss -- No... plain and simple it was heeding a caloric deficit, increased activity, or both that caused any such weight loss.
What is your definition of 'whole food'?
Also, all calorie deficit diets require the dieter to restrict food! I would rather restrict less essential food groups than restrict the portion size of the foods I really like.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more.
I don't know where people got the 0.35 g or lower figures from.I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
I was talking about normal, healthy individuals without allergies, complications, medical issues, etc.
It seems that people think that being afflicted with some sort of illness is the norm around here.
Low carb / Atkins is a fad diet... as is any diet that restricts whole foods, entire food groups, and macros in an effort to claim that following the fad diet caused your weight loss -- No... plain and simple it was heeding a caloric deficit, increased activity, or both that caused any such weight loss.
What is your definition of 'whole food'?
Also, all calorie deficit diets require the dieter to restrict food! I would rather restrict less essential food groups than restrict the portion size of the foods I really like.
Whole foods are foods found in nature, not processed foods. You know what whole foods are.
What do you consider to be a less essential food group?0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more.
I don't know where people got the 0.35 g or lower figures from.I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
I was talking about normal, healthy individuals without allergies, complications, medical issues, etc.
It seems that people think that being afflicted with some sort of illness is the norm around here.
Low carb / Atkins is a fad diet... as is any diet that restricts whole foods, entire food groups, and macros in an effort to claim that following the fad diet caused your weight loss -- No... plain and simple it was heeding a caloric deficit, increased activity, or both that caused any such weight loss.
What is your definition of 'whole food'?
Also, all calorie deficit diets require the dieter to restrict food! I would rather restrict less essential food groups than restrict the portion size of the foods I really like.
Whole foods are foods found in nature, not processed foods. You know what whole foods are.
What do you consider to be a less essential food group?
So you don't eat bread or cereal or rice? Sounds like you would enjoy a low carb diet!
less essential food group - Carbs!!!
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more.
I don't know where people got the 0.35 g or lower figures from.I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
I was talking about normal, healthy individuals without allergies, complications, medical issues, etc.
It seems that people think that being afflicted with some sort of illness is the norm around here.
Low carb / Atkins is a fad diet... as is any diet that restricts whole foods, entire food groups, and macros in an effort to claim that following the fad diet caused your weight loss -- No... plain and simple it was heeding a caloric deficit, increased activity, or both that caused any such weight loss.
What is your definition of 'whole food'?
Also, all calorie deficit diets require the dieter to restrict food! I would rather restrict less essential food groups than restrict the portion size of the foods I really like.
Whole foods are foods found in nature, not processed foods. You know what whole foods are.
What do you consider to be a less essential food group?
So you don't eat bread or cereal or rice? Sounds like you would enjoy a low carb diet!
less essential food group - Carbs!!!
Of course I do. But as a whole, my diet consists of a rich variety of whole foods, meats, colorful fruits and vegetables, grains, beans, etc.... Lean cuisines, Hostess cakes and cookies, and frozen pizzas are not usually part of my diet.
There is no minimum requirement for carbs, but they are still essential from a nutritional standpoint for fiber, vitamins, and minerals.
Are you saying you don't eat vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, etc?0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
And if you're allergic to peanuts it might be a good idea to lay off peanut butter. Does everyone really have to always put a disclaimer at the end saying "*unless you have a medical condition that necessitate otherwise" ?
The problem is that IR, prediabetes, and T2 diabetes are far more common than peanut butter allergy, and many people are undiagnosed
And the OP hasn't mentioned that he had any medicals, so why is that even important to this conversation? If someone has a medical issues, the information is generally tailored to that person, which is commonly demonstrated with someone says they have IR, PCOS, hypothyroidism, etc... And considering how lean the OP is (if that is a current picture), it's even more unlikely he would have any of those issues (unless genetics).
OP, I agree with tennisdude, that you should give it a month or so. It also might help if you slowly drop carbs to allow your body to get used to a lower amount. Sometimes just jumping right in can adversely affect things.
what part of "undiagnosed" you don't understand?
I understand it quite well. Do you understand how statistics are developed? Because if we went by all the statistics out there, over 100% of the world would have some kind of medical issue. Many are extrapolations based on various assumptions to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research.
Well, that's a legitimate point of view, of course.
Is, in your opinion, the obesity epidemic real, or just made up "to ensure the agencies get funding to support additional research"?
Again that doesn't apply to this thread. At some point, people need to take a step back and look at the whole picture instead of getting lost in minute details.
And so far, in the context of this discussion, there is NO reason to address medical issues. He asked about a particular way of eating because of some issue with losing weight. It's probably more beneficial to address the bigger and more typical issues that generally occur on here... is the OP logging, are they using the food scale, how many calories are they eating, what is their exercise routine, etc...
Or do you propose they we assume everyone has an undiagnosed medical issue?
Insulin resistance is not a "medical issue", diagnosed or otherwise: by now it is a common place occurrence for about 1/3 of populations in countries that are on a standard western, industrialized diet. And in some sub segments of the populations about 50% of people can be insulin resistant.
If your body isn't operating like it was designed, it is a medical issue. And even if someone has some sort of IR or prediabetic, it doesn't mean they have to immediately cut carbs. Many of our members have reverse prediabetes and reduced the impacts of IR, but losing weight through making smarter choices (more fruits, veggies, meats, fish, legumes, etc...)
And I am struggling why you come into every thread going off about insulin resistance, T2 and prediabetes when it doesn't even apply to the situation.
And based on the information you presented (an epidemiology study done on children) , it was clear the those conditions where based on 6 different types of methods which were not standard.
edit: So again, how does any of this IR, T2, or prediabetes discussion have to do with anything that the OP stated?0 -
The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more
Which reference supports a bare minimum fat requirement based on body weight that is so high ?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more.
I don't know where people got the 0.35 g or lower figures from.I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
I was talking about normal, healthy individuals without allergies, complications, medical issues, etc.
It seems that people think that being afflicted with some sort of illness is the norm around here.
Low carb / Atkins is a fad diet... as is any diet that restricts whole foods, entire food groups, and macros in an effort to claim that following the fad diet caused your weight loss -- No... plain and simple it was heeding a caloric deficit, increased activity, or both that caused any such weight loss.
What is your definition of 'whole food'?
Also, all calorie deficit diets require the dieter to restrict food! I would rather restrict less essential food groups than restrict the portion size of the foods I really like.
Whole foods are foods found in nature, not processed foods. You know what whole foods are.
What do you consider to be a less essential food group?
So you don't eat bread or cereal or rice? Sounds like you would enjoy a low carb diet!
less essential food group - Carbs!!!
Of course I do. But as a whole, my diet consists of a rich variety of whole foods. Lean cuisines, Hostess cakes and cookies, and frozen pizzas are not usually part of my diet.
There is no minimum requirement for carbs, but they are still essential from a nutritional standpoint, vitamins/minerals, etc.
Are you saying you don't eat vegetables, fruits, whole grains, etc?
Optimal, but not essential.
Of course I eat veg - i love the stuff especially the grean leafy sort cooked in butter (salt, pepper and some bacon bits). Love my fruit too.
I eat very few whole grains - because it is heavily processed and offers very little for the calorie cost compared to other (better choice) foods - my green leafy veg for example. Not sure under your definition cereal or bread can be classified as whole food.
-1 -
The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more
Which reference supports a bare minimum fat requirement based on body weight that is so high ?
All of them. 0.40 - 0.45 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight is the average finding from a health standpoint for the dietary fat minimum.
Just as 0.60 - 0.80 grams protein per 1 lb. bodyweight is the average range for optimal protein intake as it relates to new muscle synthesis in active individuals.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more.
I don't know where people got the 0.35 g or lower figures from.I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
I was talking about normal, healthy individuals without allergies, complications, medical issues, etc.
It seems that people think that being afflicted with some sort of illness is the norm around here.
Low carb / Atkins is a fad diet... as is any diet that restricts whole foods, entire food groups, and macros in an effort to claim that following the fad diet caused your weight loss -- No... plain and simple it was heeding a caloric deficit, increased activity, or both that caused any such weight loss.
What is your definition of 'whole food'?
Also, all calorie deficit diets require the dieter to restrict food! I would rather restrict less essential food groups than restrict the portion size of the foods I really like.
Whole foods are foods found in nature, not processed foods. You know what whole foods are.
What do you consider to be a less essential food group?
So you don't eat bread or cereal or rice? Sounds like you would enjoy a low carb diet!
less essential food group - Carbs!!!
Of course I do. But as a whole, my diet consists of a rich variety of whole foods. Lean cuisines, Hostess cakes and cookies, and frozen pizzas are not usually part of my diet.
There is no minimum requirement for carbs, but they are still essential from a nutritional standpoint, vitamins/minerals, etc.
Are you saying you don't eat vegetables, fruits, whole grains, etc?
Optimal, but not essential.
Of course I eat veg - i love the stuff especially the grean leafy sort cooked in butter (salt, pepper and some bacon bits). Love my fruit too.
I eat very few whole grains - because it is heavily processed and offers very little for the calorie cost compared to other (better choice) foods - my green leafy veg for example. Not sure under your definition cereal or bread can be classified as whole food.
Sugary, highly processed cereals and breads... not so much. But there are healthy options that supply a decent amount of fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Remember, the main ingredients for these products are wheat flour, other whole grains, water, probably a touch of oil, egg, sugar, and/or salt. There's nothing unhealthy about this.
It sounds like you are just demonizing carbs in general because that is what the media has told you to believe.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »The bare minimum in normal weight, healthy adults is approx. 0.4 grams per 1 lb. bodyweight. This equates to 64 grams minimum for a 160 lb. person. At 9 calories per gram, a daily intake of 64 grams of dietary fat per day is just 576 calories.
Did you just inflate / round-up the broscience 0.35 to 0.40 ?
11g of n-6 and 2.5g of n-3 is nearer to a bare minimum, but way more is probably healthier given the alternatives.
It's not broscience, it's actual science. You would know this if you read the studies I posted earlier. It's more like 0.40 - 0.45 g fat/day for a minimum range. People who are maintaining or bulking should be getting more.
I don't know where people got the 0.35 g or lower figures from.I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
I was talking about normal, healthy individuals without allergies, complications, medical issues, etc.
It seems that people think that being afflicted with some sort of illness is the norm around here.
Low carb / Atkins is a fad diet... as is any diet that restricts whole foods, entire food groups, and macros in an effort to claim that following the fad diet caused your weight loss -- No... plain and simple it was heeding a caloric deficit, increased activity, or both that caused any such weight loss.
What is your definition of 'whole food'?
Also, all calorie deficit diets require the dieter to restrict food! I would rather restrict less essential food groups than restrict the portion size of the foods I really like.
Whole foods are foods found in nature, not processed foods. You know what whole foods are.
What do you consider to be a less essential food group?
So you don't eat bread or cereal or rice? Sounds like you would enjoy a low carb diet!
less essential food group - Carbs!!!
Of course I do. But as a whole, my diet consists of a rich variety of whole foods. Lean cuisines, Hostess cakes and cookies, and frozen pizzas are not usually part of my diet.
There is no minimum requirement for carbs, but they are still essential from a nutritional standpoint, vitamins/minerals, etc.
Are you saying you don't eat vegetables, fruits, whole grains, etc?
Optimal, but not essential.
Of course I eat veg - i love the stuff especially the grean leafy sort cooked in butter (salt, pepper and some bacon bits). Love my fruit too.
I eat very few whole grains - because it is heavily processed and offers very little for the calorie cost compared to other (better choice) foods - my green leafy veg for example. Not sure under your definition cereal or bread can be classified as whole food.
Sugary, highly processed cereals and breads... not so much. But there are healthy options that supply a decent amount of fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Remember, the main ingredients for these products are wheat flour, other whole grains, water, probably a touch of oil, egg, sugar, and/or salt. There's nothing unhealthy about this.
It sounds like you are just demonizing carbs in general because that is what the media has told you to believe.
I'm not demonizing anything, I would never tell people not to eat carbs. Please check all my previous posts!
I choose not to eat them because they are,for me, the least interesting of the 3 macro nutrients (I love meat).
Also you have used the word unhealthy?? not sure why as I am not claiming bread or any food to be unhealthy - again check my previous posts.
But like it or not whole grains are heavily processed. The fact that they have to be artificially fortified with vitamins should be a giveaway.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I realized just how many of my calories were coming from empty carb calories. I also started noticing that I wasn't craving the carb-heavy junk that I once craved ALL the time.
Now, before anyone jumps on me for "demonizing a food group," that is not what I did. I merely explained why I like the low carb way of eating and why it works for me.
True, although if a person limits processed junk foods, high fructose breads, cakes, cookies, ice cream, etc. then the carbs they do choose should be fairly nutritious and low calorie.
Dietary fat is 9 calories per gram, the highest of the other macros by more than double. A person could easily make poor dietary fat food choices (like a single burger with 57 grams of fat) and go over their calories when factoring in the rest of their intake.
The trick really is getting more involved with whole foods and limiting processed foods and not overeating... not by going low carb or high fat or vice versa... that choice is meaningless as it pertains to composing a rational diet.
NOT if you're insulin resistant, pre diabetic or type 2 diabetic. In those cases, going low carb - high fat - moderate protein is the rational choice to make.
Neither is it a fad diet in and of itself. It's been along longer than the present day high carb recommendations for a "healthy" macro ratio
And if you're allergic to peanuts it might be a good idea to lay off peanut butter. Does everyone really have to always put a disclaimer at the end saying "*unless you have a medical condition that necessitate otherwise" ?
The disclaimer wouldn't really help any undiagnosed people who are struggling to figure out their issues. Also, the medical community isn't great at treating metabolic issues with anything other than drugs, so many are on their own trying to figure out the food solutions to their issues.
Metabolically healthy overweight or obese people are a minority in the overweight/obese group, it would be far more appropriate to assume a metabolic issue and only ask "are you completely healthy with no risk factors"?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions