Extreme Low Carb Diet
Options
Replies
-
Insulin enables cells to take up sugar from the bloodstream, by binding to an insulin receptor on the surface of cells, which causes glut-4 receptors to be inserted into the cell membrane, enabling glucose to enter the cell. Glucose that stays in the bloodstream, because the insulin receptors are saturated, or because there is no insulin, is glucose that isn't being utilized for energy,
There's insulin and then there is "insulin". If I could find this "insulin" some talk about, I'd have the world's cleanest power source, producing energy out of nothing.cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, also a bag of Doritos has 140 calories, 68 of which are from carbs, 63 of which are from fat. Again, seems weird to blame "carbs" for those calories. Pizza generally has a ton of calories from fat too, cheese, fatty meats (if you add them), olives, olive oil or whatever else is used depending on the pizza.
It's so weird how people write off high cal foods they tend to overeat as "carbs" when typically they are a mix.
It's only weird if you don't factor in what happens to insulin when you eat carbohydrates.
sigh.
insulin isn't quite the bad guy everyone seems to make it out to be...
sigh.
too bad so many people don't actually understand how insulin actually works...
sigh.
0 -
Yes, and all of those follow the known laws of preservation of energy. Insulin also has to do with taking up fats and amino acids into cells.lithezebra wrote: »
Insulin enables cells to take up sugar from the bloodstream, by binding to an insulin receptor on the surface of cells, which causes glut-4 receptors to be inserted into the cell membrane, enabling glucose to enter the cell. Glucose that stays in the bloodstream, because the insulin receptors are saturated, or because there is no insulin, is glucose that isn't being utilized for energy,
There's insulin and then there is "insulin". If I could find this "insulin" some talk about, I'd have the world's cleanest power source, producing energy out of nothing.cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, also a bag of Doritos has 140 calories, 68 of which are from carbs, 63 of which are from fat. Again, seems weird to blame "carbs" for those calories. Pizza generally has a ton of calories from fat too, cheese, fatty meats (if you add them), olives, olive oil or whatever else is used depending on the pizza.
It's so weird how people write off high cal foods they tend to overeat as "carbs" when typically they are a mix.
It's only weird if you don't factor in what happens to insulin when you eat carbohydrates.
sigh.
insulin isn't quite the bad guy everyone seems to make it out to be...
sigh.
too bad so many people don't actually understand how insulin actually works...
sigh.
"Insulin", on the other hand, allows store fat (energy) that hasn't been consumed because there are plenty of people that insist that insulin causes the body to store fat, regardless of calorie deficit.0 -
Why can't we all just get along? Haha0
-
Yes, and all of those follow the known laws of preservation of energy. Insulin also has to do with taking up fats and amino acids into cells.lithezebra wrote: »
Insulin enables cells to take up sugar from the bloodstream, by binding to an insulin receptor on the surface of cells, which causes glut-4 receptors to be inserted into the cell membrane, enabling glucose to enter the cell. Glucose that stays in the bloodstream, because the insulin receptors are saturated, or because there is no insulin, is glucose that isn't being utilized for energy,
There's insulin and then there is "insulin". If I could find this "insulin" some talk about, I'd have the world's cleanest power source, producing energy out of nothing.cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, also a bag of Doritos has 140 calories, 68 of which are from carbs, 63 of which are from fat. Again, seems weird to blame "carbs" for those calories. Pizza generally has a ton of calories from fat too, cheese, fatty meats (if you add them), olives, olive oil or whatever else is used depending on the pizza.
It's so weird how people write off high cal foods they tend to overeat as "carbs" when typically they are a mix.
It's only weird if you don't factor in what happens to insulin when you eat carbohydrates.
sigh.
insulin isn't quite the bad guy everyone seems to make it out to be...
sigh.
too bad so many people don't actually understand how insulin actually works...
sigh.
"Insulin", on the other hand, allows store fat (energy) that hasn't been consumed because there are plenty of people that insist that insulin causes the body to store fat, regardless of calorie deficit.
The idea that insulin dysregulation could be involved in weight gain has been a valid hypothesis, and may still be. There is still a lot to understand about why some people's metabolisms are thriftier than others, why some people get diabetes and others don't, and how insulin might be involved in appetite and weight gain, all while adhering to energy conservation laws of course. In the meantime, I favor after meal activity to help my cells use up glucose, keep my insulin receptors unsaturated and available to do their job, and avoid the damage of prolonged high blood sugar.0 -
There is no thrifty metabolism. There are rare metabolism that burn more, but nature already has spent a few billion years looking for more efficient ways to do things. We started walking on two legs because it saved our early ancestors who happened to have the right length legs, just a few calories per kilometer at first (we got more efficient). For the general population, RMR is within 10-16% for 96% of the population.lithezebra wrote: »
Yes, and all of those follow the known laws of preservation of energy. Insulin also has to do with taking up fats and amino acids into cells.lithezebra wrote: »
Insulin enables cells to take up sugar from the bloodstream, by binding to an insulin receptor on the surface of cells, which causes glut-4 receptors to be inserted into the cell membrane, enabling glucose to enter the cell. Glucose that stays in the bloodstream, because the insulin receptors are saturated, or because there is no insulin, is glucose that isn't being utilized for energy,
There's insulin and then there is "insulin". If I could find this "insulin" some talk about, I'd have the world's cleanest power source, producing energy out of nothing.cwolfman13 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, also a bag of Doritos has 140 calories, 68 of which are from carbs, 63 of which are from fat. Again, seems weird to blame "carbs" for those calories. Pizza generally has a ton of calories from fat too, cheese, fatty meats (if you add them), olives, olive oil or whatever else is used depending on the pizza.
It's so weird how people write off high cal foods they tend to overeat as "carbs" when typically they are a mix.
It's only weird if you don't factor in what happens to insulin when you eat carbohydrates.
sigh.
insulin isn't quite the bad guy everyone seems to make it out to be...
sigh.
too bad so many people don't actually understand how insulin actually works...
sigh.
"Insulin", on the other hand, allows store fat (energy) that hasn't been consumed because there are plenty of people that insist that insulin causes the body to store fat, regardless of calorie deficit.
The idea that insulin dysregulation could be involved in weight gain has been a valid hypothesis, and may still be. There is still a lot to understand about why some people's metabolisms are thriftier than others, why some people get diabetes and others don't, and how insulin might be involved in appetite and weight gain, all while adhering to energy conservation laws of course. In the meantime, I favor after meal activity to help my cells use up glucose, keep my insulin receptors unsaturated and available to do their job, and avoid the damage of prolonged high blood sugar.
It most definitely can affect appetite. It can definitely affect undirected level of activity. It won't make anyone store calories they didn't consume.0 -
^ Nailed it.
Too many people on this forum concentrate on rare conditions and medical diagnoses to build a diet that makes them mentally comfortable. Couple this with media scares and diet propaganda, and fear sets in. However, these diets are not rational for the large majority of society.
Unfortunately, a lot of you need to legit RE-learn everything you think you know about basic nutrition. 99% of the carb centered threads on this forum are utterly ridiculous with no benefit to anyone. And if someone is diabetic, they should be consulting their doctor, not the internet.0 -
Your profile page indicates you have lost 10 pounds ( I am guessing at the very least 5 of those pounds are water) with 50 pounds to go. I would say it is far too soon to say low carb is THE way to go...Actually I'm losing a bit faster. But anyway. Nope, no reason to argue. I won't hold it against you if you don't believe it's possible. The numbers on my scale are good enough for me0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, also a bag of Doritos has 140 calories, 68 of which are from carbs, 63 of which are from fat. Again, seems weird to blame "carbs" for those calories. Pizza generally has a ton of calories from fat too, cheese, fatty meats (if you add them), olives, olive oil or whatever else is used depending on the pizza.
It's so weird how people write off high cal foods they tend to overeat as "carbs" when typically they are a mix.
It's only weird if you don't factor in what happens to insulin when you eat carbohydrates.
sigh.
You know i take insulin into consideration everytime that i eat protein and carbs but then i actually remember that my body can regulate it very well and considering insulin is not something that most people need to take into consideration. Literally, there are a hundred other things to worry about. But if it makes you happy feel free to worry about the details and not look at the whole picture.
I truly struggle to understand insulin is brought into every single thread like its a bad thing?0 -
And personal observation, i really dont know how people get filled up on fat... i never do. I can get full off 1 baked potato (300g) with 1 tbsp of butter but need like 5 servings of nuts to even remotely touch my hunger. So if fats fill you up, thats great because they dont for me..0
-
most of the carbs people seem to be "addicted" to and whatnot seem to be of this mix...i've yet to here about black beans giving anyone crazy cravings...Black beans have protein and tons and tons of fiber -- not a carb anywhere close to chips or pizza.
Exactly. My diet is 80% carbs because I now eat lots of beans, lentils, whole grains, potatoes, veggies and fruits and very very little junk/processed food. I go well over 300g carbs almost daily, and at 125 lbs, I'm almost done losing weight. And yet, these are healthy whole foods that a low-carber would have no choice but to avoid or limit themselves to non-starchy veggies only. This is the problem with fixating on macros instead of whole foods and nutrient density. Glad I got off that low-carb bandwagon. It was a complete waste of time and compared to what I eat now, much less healthy.100 grams of black beans (measured raw) would be 341 calories, of which 248 calories (or 72%) are from carbs, and 88 calories or 26% are from protein. Much more carby, really. That you'd say it's less of a "carb" than foods that are much higher in fat and lower in carb percentage is interesting and shows how the term "carb" gets so misused in these discussions, as if it meant "junk food." When, of course, fruits and vegetables are classic carbs.
Oh, and I should add that my most recent fasting blood glucose was 70 (normal range should be 65-99).
That's for those who still think that somehow carbs cause your blood glucose and insulin to do something other than what they're supposed to do, which is to behave normally.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »most of the carbs people seem to be "addicted" to and whatnot seem to be of this mix...i've yet to here about black beans giving anyone crazy cravings...Black beans have protein and tons and tons of fiber -- not a carb anywhere close to chips or pizza.
Exactly. My diet is 80% carbs because I now eat lots of beans, lentils, whole grains, potatoes, veggies and fruits and very very little junk/processed food. I go well over 300g carbs almost daily, and at 125 lbs, I'm almost done losing weight. And yet, these are healthy whole foods that a low-carber would have no choice but to avoid or limit themselves to non-starchy veggies only. This is the problem with fixating on macros instead of whole foods and nutrient density. Glad I got off that low-carb bandwagon. It was a complete waste of time and compared to what I eat now, much less healthy.100 grams of black beans (measured raw) would be 341 calories, of which 248 calories (or 72%) are from carbs, and 88 calories or 26% are from protein. Much more carby, really. That you'd say it's less of a "carb" than foods that are much higher in fat and lower in carb percentage is interesting and shows how the term "carb" gets so misused in these discussions, as if it meant "junk food." When, of course, fruits and vegetables are classic carbs.
Oh, and I should add that my most recent fasting blood glucose was 70 (normal range should be 65-99).
That's for those who still think that somehow carbs cause your blood glucose and insulin to do something other than what they're supposed to do, which is to behave normally.
wait, you eat 80% carbs (that I guess is possible only going vegetarian) and are not "fixated" on macros?
0 -
And personal observation, i really dont know how people get filled up on fat... i never do. I can get full off 1 baked potato (300g) with 1 tbsp of butter but need like 5 servings of nuts to even remotely touch my hunger. So if fats fill you up, thats great because they dont for me..
This is so me. I believe people are different (a courtesy some low carb folks don't return) but I've tried to get filled up by adding full fat dairy or fattier meats or olive/coconut oil, and it doesn't work for me. I'm not remotely low fat (I like about 30%), but increasing fat doesn't help with satiety at all and cutting fat usually makes it easier to cut calories. I get full eating potatoes with lean meat and veg and very limited oil, vs my old menus of the same with butter (and plenty) and fattier meat. (I wish that weren't the case, but it is -- I could so easily eat insane amounts of cheese a day.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Oh, also a bag of Doritos has 140 calories, 68 of which are from carbs, 63 of which are from fat. Again, seems weird to blame "carbs" for those calories. Pizza generally has a ton of calories from fat too, cheese, fatty meats (if you add them), olives, olive oil or whatever else is used depending on the pizza.
It's so weird how people write off high cal foods they tend to overeat as "carbs" when typically they are a mix.
It's only weird if you don't factor in what happens to insulin when you eat carbohydrates.
sigh.
Nothing bad seems to happen to my insulin when I eat carbs within the context of a healthy, balanced diet.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »most of the carbs people seem to be "addicted" to and whatnot seem to be of this mix...i've yet to here about black beans giving anyone crazy cravings...Black beans have protein and tons and tons of fiber -- not a carb anywhere close to chips or pizza.
Exactly. My diet is 80% carbs because I now eat lots of beans, lentils, whole grains, potatoes, veggies and fruits and very very little junk/processed food. I go well over 300g carbs almost daily, and at 125 lbs, I'm almost done losing weight. And yet, these are healthy whole foods that a low-carber would have no choice but to avoid or limit themselves to non-starchy veggies only. This is the problem with fixating on macros instead of whole foods and nutrient density. Glad I got off that low-carb bandwagon. It was a complete waste of time and compared to what I eat now, much less healthy.100 grams of black beans (measured raw) would be 341 calories, of which 248 calories (or 72%) are from carbs, and 88 calories or 26% are from protein. Much more carby, really. That you'd say it's less of a "carb" than foods that are much higher in fat and lower in carb percentage is interesting and shows how the term "carb" gets so misused in these discussions, as if it meant "junk food." When, of course, fruits and vegetables are classic carbs.
Oh, and I should add that my most recent fasting blood glucose was 70 (normal range should be 65-99).
That's for those who still think that somehow carbs cause your blood glucose and insulin to do something other than what they're supposed to do, which is to behave normally.
wait, you eat 80% carbs (that I guess is possible only going vegetarian) and are not "fixated" on macros?
I believe Traveler120 is vegan. That's the kind of ratio that can happen naturally if one is vegan.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »most of the carbs people seem to be "addicted" to and whatnot seem to be of this mix...i've yet to here about black beans giving anyone crazy cravings...Black beans have protein and tons and tons of fiber -- not a carb anywhere close to chips or pizza.
Exactly. My diet is 80% carbs because I now eat lots of beans, lentils, whole grains, potatoes, veggies and fruits and very very little junk/processed food. I go well over 300g carbs almost daily, and at 125 lbs, I'm almost done losing weight. And yet, these are healthy whole foods that a low-carber would have no choice but to avoid or limit themselves to non-starchy veggies only. This is the problem with fixating on macros instead of whole foods and nutrient density. Glad I got off that low-carb bandwagon. It was a complete waste of time and compared to what I eat now, much less healthy.100 grams of black beans (measured raw) would be 341 calories, of which 248 calories (or 72%) are from carbs, and 88 calories or 26% are from protein. Much more carby, really. That you'd say it's less of a "carb" than foods that are much higher in fat and lower in carb percentage is interesting and shows how the term "carb" gets so misused in these discussions, as if it meant "junk food." When, of course, fruits and vegetables are classic carbs.
Oh, and I should add that my most recent fasting blood glucose was 70 (normal range should be 65-99).
That's for those who still think that somehow carbs cause your blood glucose and insulin to do something other than what they're supposed to do, which is to behave normally.
wait, you eat 80% carbs (that I guess is possible only going vegetarian) and are not "fixated" on macros?
I believe Traveler120 is vegan. That's the kind of ratio that can happen naturally if one is vegan.
if you also cut stuffs like nuts, avocado, olives, coconut...
0 -
Nor does it automatically improve blood and hormone profiles (any associated weight loss with it does that). If you wanted to test that theory, over-eat on keto to see if it has similar results as overeating on all other types of food.
I recommend reading about diet changes without caloric restriction to remove the confusion of weight loss. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/16 for example.
Overeating carbohydrate will fatten up the liver and increase triglycerides and we have known for ages that high fat hypocaloric diet has a greater reduction in triglycerides than the same calories with a high % carbohydrate.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »most of the carbs people seem to be "addicted" to and whatnot seem to be of this mix...i've yet to here about black beans giving anyone crazy cravings...Black beans have protein and tons and tons of fiber -- not a carb anywhere close to chips or pizza.
Exactly. My diet is 80% carbs because I now eat lots of beans, lentils, whole grains, potatoes, veggies and fruits and very very little junk/processed food. I go well over 300g carbs almost daily, and at 125 lbs, I'm almost done losing weight. And yet, these are healthy whole foods that a low-carber would have no choice but to avoid or limit themselves to non-starchy veggies only. This is the problem with fixating on macros instead of whole foods and nutrient density. Glad I got off that low-carb bandwagon. It was a complete waste of time and compared to what I eat now, much less healthy.100 grams of black beans (measured raw) would be 341 calories, of which 248 calories (or 72%) are from carbs, and 88 calories or 26% are from protein. Much more carby, really. That you'd say it's less of a "carb" than foods that are much higher in fat and lower in carb percentage is interesting and shows how the term "carb" gets so misused in these discussions, as if it meant "junk food." When, of course, fruits and vegetables are classic carbs.
Oh, and I should add that my most recent fasting blood glucose was 70 (normal range should be 65-99).
That's for those who still think that somehow carbs cause your blood glucose and insulin to do something other than what they're supposed to do, which is to behave normally.
wait, you eat 80% carbs (that I guess is possible only going vegetarian) and are not "fixated" on macros?
She probably means she happens to consume about 80% of her intake from carbs. I tend to agree that fixating on macros outside of general comfort zone of any diet is detrimental. I also happen to have most of my calories in carb form, around 60-70%. Back when I was morbidly obese about 60% of my calories came from fat. So in a sense, to successfully and comfortably lose weight I lowered my fat% and increased my carbs%. Gram per gram, I eat about as many grams of carbs as I used to eat before my weight loss. Just like her, my fasting blood sugar averages around 75 now (used to average around 118).
The point here is: whatever takes you from unhealthy weight point A to healthy weight point B with the least resistance is the healthier diet. For some it's low carb, for other it's low fat, and for some others it's low protein. Fussing about it any further is unnecessary.0 -
And personal observation, i really dont know how people get filled up on fat... i never do. I can get full off 1 baked potato (300g) with 1 tbsp of butter but need like 5 servings of nuts to even remotely touch my hunger. So if fats fill you up, thats great because they dont for me..
Context perhaps ? You're on a high carb diet with blood sugar all over the place so you need the potato to crank up the blood sugar to remove the glycaemic hunger.
I'm on a low carb diet and don't have any hunger.
That's why you don't get it. Fats aren't going to fix the blood sugar crash you're addressing with your starch bolus.0 -
And personal observation, i really dont know how people get filled up on fat... i never do. I can get full off 1 baked potato (300g) with 1 tbsp of butter but need like 5 servings of nuts to even remotely touch my hunger. So if fats fill you up, thats great because they dont for me..
Context perhaps ? You're on a high carb diet with blood sugar all over the place so you need the potato to crank up the blood sugar to remove the glycaemic hunger.
I'm on a low carb diet and don't have any hunger.
That's why you don't get it. Fats aren't going to fix the blood sugar crash you're addressing with your starch bolus.
It doesn't matter what the context is or the reason for better satiety. As long as it serves its purpose (makes you eat less) then it's doing its job.
I have noticed when I eat to satiety without any regard to calories (like I have been doing lately) I tend to overeat on days I consume more fat than usual, and undereat on days I consume less fat. Here is an example of two days where I ate to full satiety without feeling hungry or overfull, and it's a very common trend in my diet. Yesterday the foods I felt like eating happened to contain less fat, 3 days ago they happened to be very high in fat. The day between these two days was somewhere in the middle both in terms of calories and fat, so I'm not going to post it.
0 -
Nor does it automatically improve blood and hormone profiles (any associated weight loss with it does that). If you wanted to test that theory, over-eat on keto to see if it has similar results as overeating on all other types of food.
I recommend reading about diet changes without caloric restriction to remove the confusion of weight loss. http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/16 for example.
Overeating carbohydrate will fatten up the liver and increase triglycerides and we have known for ages that high fat hypocaloric diet has a greater reduction in triglycerides than the same calories with a high % carbohydrate.
First link is for those with Type 2, is that representative of the population at large? Certainly not based on the current statistics
the 2nd one, does overeating carbs fatten the liver significantly more than a mixed or fat or protein only? There was no control and they did mention in the study, mult other studies involving over consumption of fructose did not significantly fatten the liver.
3rd one, it is also correlated to the weight losses, does the greater reduction hold over longer periods of time, esp once weight/fat losses normalize?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions