Low Carb Dieting - Induction Phase
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, 7 net g of broccoli is normal for me, but I commonly have an additional veg with it -- if cauliflower it will be less (maybe 5), if brussels sprouts or green beans or carrots, more. (Greens are fewer.)
Times that by 3.
Would be over 30 and even if 50 were the goal wouldn't leave any room for dairy, fruit, or starches like potatoes or oatmeal or sweet potatoes or legumes, which I consider healthy.
12 g net carbs for a whole day seems low veggie to me. Within the 50 limit I think one can do a reasonable number of veg, if one leaves out all other carbs. If one is active enough to increase keto limit, then, I think it can be consistent with the amount of veggies I like, but unless it helps you eat better overall I don't see the need to cut out stuff like fruit, dairy, and legumes.
Nor do I actually agree that cheese or steak is inherently better than ice cream or chocolate. Sometimes, sure, but it depends on the day as a whole.
I do eat lower veggie than you, probably lower than many, but I feel better that way. That broccoli gave me a stomach ache for a good hour... Broccoli should be eaten in moderation.
For me, a prediabetic with other autoimmune issues, the steak and cheese would be vastly better for me than the chocolate and ice cream. At all times. For those who are healthy, who knows.[/quote]
I think one should be careful when using 'healthy' as a self-qualifier for having been identified as prediabetic. Prediabetic simply means conditions are present in the body that, if poor self-care were to continue, diabetes could be in the future for that person. If the person is self-aware and begins a good regimen of self-care, diabetes can be averted. Even a person who has diabetes who is managing the condition well can be considered 'healthy'. It's all in how you care for yourself.
By healthy, I meant people who do not have a pre existing health condition.
Everyone has a preexisting health condition. If you want to get technical, we're all terminally ill from birth. It's just a matter of doing the best we can with the hand we're dealt.
I have three health conditions, one of which is terminal. One of the others keeps me from exercising, at all. I'm currently maintaining at goal weight. I consider myself to be healthy, because I'm maintaining a healthy balance of weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, get enough sleep, take the appropriate supplements, and eat a well-balanced diet. What could be healthier than that?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, 7 net g of broccoli is normal for me, but I commonly have an additional veg with it -- if cauliflower it will be less (maybe 5), if brussels sprouts or green beans or carrots, more. (Greens are fewer.)
Times that by 3.
Would be over 30 and even if 50 were the goal wouldn't leave any room for dairy, fruit, or starches like potatoes or oatmeal or sweet potatoes or legumes, which I consider healthy.
12 g net carbs for a whole day seems low veggie to me. Within the 50 limit I think one can do a reasonable number of veg, if one leaves out all other carbs. If one is active enough to increase keto limit, then, I think it can be consistent with the amount of veggies I like, but unless it helps you eat better overall I don't see the need to cut out stuff like fruit, dairy, and legumes.
Nor do I actually agree that cheese or steak is inherently better than ice cream or chocolate. Sometimes, sure, but it depends on the day as a whole.
I do eat lower veggie than you, probably lower than many, but I feel better that way. That broccoli gave me a stomach ache for a good hour... Broccoli should be eaten in moderation.
For me, a prediabetic with other autoimmune issues, the steak and cheese would be vastly better for me than the chocolate and ice cream. At all times. For those who are healthy, who knows.[/quote]
I think one should be careful when using 'healthy' as a self-qualifier for having been identified as prediabetic. Prediabetic simply means conditions are present in the body that, if poor self-care were to continue, diabetes could be in the future for that person. If the person is self-aware and begins a good regimen of self-care, diabetes can be averted. Even a person who has diabetes who is managing the condition well can be considered 'healthy'. It's all in how you care for yourself.
By healthy, I meant people who do not have a pre existing health condition.
Everyone has a preexisting health condition. If you want to get technical, we're all terminally ill from birth. It's just a matter of doing the best we can with the hand we're dealt.
I have three health conditions, one of which is terminal. One of the others keeps me from exercising, at all. I'm currently maintaining at goal weight. I consider myself to be healthy, because I'm maintaining a healthy balance of weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, get enough sleep, take the appropriate supplements, and eat a well-balanced diet. What could be healthier than that?
Someone without the conditions.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, 7 net g of broccoli is normal for me, but I commonly have an additional veg with it -- if cauliflower it will be less (maybe 5), if brussels sprouts or green beans or carrots, more. (Greens are fewer.)
Times that by 3.
Would be over 30 and even if 50 were the goal wouldn't leave any room for dairy, fruit, or starches like potatoes or oatmeal or sweet potatoes or legumes, which I consider healthy.
12 g net carbs for a whole day seems low veggie to me. Within the 50 limit I think one can do a reasonable number of veg, if one leaves out all other carbs. If one is active enough to increase keto limit, then, I think it can be consistent with the amount of veggies I like, but unless it helps you eat better overall I don't see the need to cut out stuff like fruit, dairy, and legumes.
Nor do I actually agree that cheese or steak is inherently better than ice cream or chocolate. Sometimes, sure, but it depends on the day as a whole.
I do eat lower veggie than you, probably lower than many, but I feel better that way. That broccoli gave me a stomach ache for a good hour... Broccoli should be eaten in moderation.
For me, a prediabetic with other autoimmune issues, the steak and cheese would be vastly better for me than the chocolate and ice cream. At all times. For those who are healthy, who knows.[/quote]
I think one should be careful when using 'healthy' as a self-qualifier for having been identified as prediabetic. Prediabetic simply means conditions are present in the body that, if poor self-care were to continue, diabetes could be in the future for that person. If the person is self-aware and begins a good regimen of self-care, diabetes can be averted. Even a person who has diabetes who is managing the condition well can be considered 'healthy'. It's all in how you care for yourself.
By healthy, I meant people who do not have a pre existing health condition.
Everyone has a preexisting health condition. If you want to get technical, we're all terminally ill from birth. It's just a matter of doing the best we can with the hand we're dealt.
I have three health conditions, one of which is terminal. One of the others keeps me from exercising, at all. I'm currently maintaining at goal weight. I consider myself to be healthy, because I'm maintaining a healthy balance of weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, get enough sleep, take the appropriate supplements, and eat a well-balanced diet. What could be healthier than that?
Someone without the conditions.
That's amazing blind. So you're saying the three conditions I have make me unhealthier than someone who is obese, with high cholesterol, and high blood pressure, and a bad diet? I fail to see how brain cancer, Celiac disease, and degenerative disk disease makes me unhealhier than that other person.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, 7 net g of broccoli is normal for me, but I commonly have an additional veg with it -- if cauliflower it will be less (maybe 5), if brussels sprouts or green beans or carrots, more. (Greens are fewer.)
Times that by 3.
Would be over 30 and even if 50 were the goal wouldn't leave any room for dairy, fruit, or starches like potatoes or oatmeal or sweet potatoes or legumes, which I consider healthy.
12 g net carbs for a whole day seems low veggie to me. Within the 50 limit I think one can do a reasonable number of veg, if one leaves out all other carbs. If one is active enough to increase keto limit, then, I think it can be consistent with the amount of veggies I like, but unless it helps you eat better overall I don't see the need to cut out stuff like fruit, dairy, and legumes.
Nor do I actually agree that cheese or steak is inherently better than ice cream or chocolate. Sometimes, sure, but it depends on the day as a whole.
I do eat lower veggie than you, probably lower than many, but I feel better that way. That broccoli gave me a stomach ache for a good hour... Broccoli should be eaten in moderation.
For me, a prediabetic with other autoimmune issues, the steak and cheese would be vastly better for me than the chocolate and ice cream. At all times. For those who are healthy, who knows.
If something gives someone a stomach ache, that's certainly a consideration for them, but I think there are many people who can eat larger quantities of broccoli without a problem. I had about 4 cups of broccoli for dinner last night (along with about a cup of cauliflower) and it didn't impact my stomach at all.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, 7 net g of broccoli is normal for me, but I commonly have an additional veg with it -- if cauliflower it will be less (maybe 5), if brussels sprouts or green beans or carrots, more. (Greens are fewer.)
Times that by 3.
Would be over 30 and even if 50 were the goal wouldn't leave any room for dairy, fruit, or starches like potatoes or oatmeal or sweet potatoes or legumes, which I consider healthy.
12 g net carbs for a whole day seems low veggie to me. Within the 50 limit I think one can do a reasonable number of veg, if one leaves out all other carbs. If one is active enough to increase keto limit, then, I think it can be consistent with the amount of veggies I like, but unless it helps you eat better overall I don't see the need to cut out stuff like fruit, dairy, and legumes.
Nor do I actually agree that cheese or steak is inherently better than ice cream or chocolate. Sometimes, sure, but it depends on the day as a whole.
I do eat lower veggie than you, probably lower than many, but I feel better that way. That broccoli gave me a stomach ache for a good hour... Broccoli should be eaten in moderation.
For me, a prediabetic with other autoimmune issues, the steak and cheese would be vastly better for me than the chocolate and ice cream. At all times. For those who are healthy, who knows.[/quote]
I think one should be careful when using 'healthy' as a self-qualifier for having been identified as prediabetic. Prediabetic simply means conditions are present in the body that, if poor self-care were to continue, diabetes could be in the future for that person. If the person is self-aware and begins a good regimen of self-care, diabetes can be averted. Even a person who has diabetes who is managing the condition well can be considered 'healthy'. It's all in how you care for yourself.
By healthy, I meant people who do not have a pre existing health condition.
Everyone has a preexisting health condition. If you want to get technical, we're all terminally ill from birth. It's just a matter of doing the best we can with the hand we're dealt.
I have three health conditions, one of which is terminal. One of the others keeps me from exercising, at all. I'm currently maintaining at goal weight. I consider myself to be healthy, because I'm maintaining a healthy balance of weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, get enough sleep, take the appropriate supplements, and eat a well-balanced diet. What could be healthier than that?
Someone without the conditions.
That's amazing blind. So you're saying the three conditions I have make me unhealthier than someone who is obese, with high cholesterol, and high blood pressure, and a bad diet? I fail to see how brain cancer, Celiac disease, and degenerative disk disease makes me unhealhier than that other person.
I am sorry you have cancer.
I also have your other problems and some other issues. Someone without those chronic issues, or other problems is healthier. I don't want to get into what health issue is less healthy than another. It would be largely opinion based.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, 7 net g of broccoli is normal for me, but I commonly have an additional veg with it -- if cauliflower it will be less (maybe 5), if brussels sprouts or green beans or carrots, more. (Greens are fewer.)
Times that by 3.
Would be over 30 and even if 50 were the goal wouldn't leave any room for dairy, fruit, or starches like potatoes or oatmeal or sweet potatoes or legumes, which I consider healthy.
12 g net carbs for a whole day seems low veggie to me. Within the 50 limit I think one can do a reasonable number of veg, if one leaves out all other carbs. If one is active enough to increase keto limit, then, I think it can be consistent with the amount of veggies I like, but unless it helps you eat better overall I don't see the need to cut out stuff like fruit, dairy, and legumes.
Nor do I actually agree that cheese or steak is inherently better than ice cream or chocolate. Sometimes, sure, but it depends on the day as a whole.
I do eat lower veggie than you, probably lower than many, but I feel better that way. That broccoli gave me a stomach ache for a good hour... Broccoli should be eaten in moderation.
For me, a prediabetic with other autoimmune issues, the steak and cheese would be vastly better for me than the chocolate and ice cream. At all times. For those who are healthy, who knows.[/quote]
I think one should be careful when using 'healthy' as a self-qualifier for having been identified as prediabetic. Prediabetic simply means conditions are present in the body that, if poor self-care were to continue, diabetes could be in the future for that person. If the person is self-aware and begins a good regimen of self-care, diabetes can be averted. Even a person who has diabetes who is managing the condition well can be considered 'healthy'. It's all in how you care for yourself.
By healthy, I meant people who do not have a pre existing health condition.
Everyone has a preexisting health condition. If you want to get technical, we're all terminally ill from birth. It's just a matter of doing the best we can with the hand we're dealt.
I have three health conditions, one of which is terminal. One of the others keeps me from exercising, at all. I'm currently maintaining at goal weight. I consider myself to be healthy, because I'm maintaining a healthy balance of weight, blood pressure, cholesterol, get enough sleep, take the appropriate supplements, and eat a well-balanced diet. What could be healthier than that?
Someone without the conditions.
That's amazing blind. So you're saying the three conditions I have make me unhealthier than someone who is obese, with high cholesterol, and high blood pressure, and a bad diet? I fail to see how brain cancer, Celiac disease, and degenerative disk disease makes me unhealhier than that other person.
I am sorry you have cancer.
I also have your other problems and some other issues. Someone without those chronic issues, or other problems is healthier. I don't want to get into what health issue is less healthy than another. It would be largely opinion based.
I think that having chronic issues and maintaining a healthy body is much healthier than having an unhealthy body without chronic issues. That's not an opinion - the unhealthy body will deteriorate into myriad comorbidities. And is entirely in the person's control. Even autoimmune diseases are kept under control by a balanced diet and the person can be much healthier - as I'd imagine has been your experience with autoimmune conditions. I'm trying to make the point here that we can't just sit back and think of ourselves as unhealthy because of some chronic condition, terminal or not. We're still fully in control of our bodies and can be healthy and have a good quality of life.0 -
I think most people know that and would agree that care must be given to health conditions. A healthy diet will often improve those conditions-it did for me.0
-
That is what most people don't get. Weight loss alone (regardless of the diet you follow) will improve your overall health. Every single diet I have seen has improved health markers as long as weight loss is involved. So i struggle to understand how we always go down rabbit holes on which diet is best. There really is NO best diet, only the diet that is best for the individual.I think most people know that and would agree that care must be given to health conditions. A healthy diet will often improve those conditions-it did for me.
What I would love to see is a study that has people switch to a specific diet and gain weight to see if your improve your health (blood test, metabolic testing, etc..). Heck, i would even be ok if they designed a program where participates maintained weight but changed diet composition to see how much improvement was achieved.
0 -
I think the arguments come up because the diet that is working well for weight loss may not be the best healthy diet.
I could lose weight eating an unhealthy diet if I kept my calories low. If I ate 1200 calories of 70% carbs (of mostly sugar and highly processed grains - I view these as foods that will harm my health) I would lose but my blood sugars and inflammation would not do so well, and my acne would probably return.
I am also at a normal BMI, so extra weight loss may not help my health.
Healthy diets are not always what works for people during weight loss.0 -
What I would love to see is a study that has people switch to a specific diet and gain weight to see if your improve your health (blood test, metabolic testing, etc..). Heck, i would even be ok if they designed a program where participates maintained weight but changed diet composition to see how much improvement was achieved.
The latter has been done in diabetics - changing diet composition without weight loss.
Personally I dislike the emphasis on weight loss for improving health because the track record of weight loss is so poor. Combine the two and you are offering a poor outlook. If diet changes can improve health markers without waiting for or relying on weight loss that has to be better. I accept that in the long run excess weight isn't healthy and weight loss is desirable, it's the reliance on it that bugs me.0 -
That's just an enabling outlook. "Let's just accept improvement in health without weight loss, because people don't lose weight." People don't lose weight because we live in a society that enables people constantly.What I would love to see is a study that has people switch to a specific diet and gain weight to see if your improve your health (blood test, metabolic testing, etc..). Heck, i would even be ok if they designed a program where participates maintained weight but changed diet composition to see how much improvement was achieved.
The latter has been done in diabetics - changing diet composition without weight loss.
Personally I dislike the emphasis on weight loss for improving health because the track record of weight loss is so poor. Combine the two and you are offering a poor outlook. If diet changes can improve health markers without waiting for or relying on weight loss that has to be better. I accept that in the long run excess weight isn't healthy and weight loss is desirable, it's the reliance on it that bugs me.
0 -
I think the arguments come up because the diet that is working well for weight loss may not be the best healthy diet.
I could lose weight eating an unhealthy diet if I kept my calories low. If I ate 1200 calories of 70% carbs (of mostly sugar and highly processed grains - I view these as foods that will harm my health) I would lose but my blood sugars and inflammation would not do so well, and my acne would probably return.
I am also at a normal BMI, so extra weight loss may not help my health.
Healthy diets are not always what works for people during weight loss.
I guess it would be how we determine health. Even the twinkie diet improve the guys health markers across the board. For your particular situation, it's a bit different as you have preexisting conditions (same for my wife who needs a lower carb diet). Looking as VLCD to help obese people may serve as a good example. Will eating 800 calorie give them health.... maybe not long term but losing 20-30 lbs can probably be beneficial based on their current situation.
For my situation, i tend to concentrate on calories, then protein and fats (~ 90g a day)/carbs (~240g/day) just happen to fall out. I also, tend to try to hit 20-30g of fiber and get a lot of my foods from whole sources. My blood work continues to get better every time I lose weight with the exception of LDL/HDL, but that is because of genetics. Both are those are almost exactly in line with both of my parents (my mom is at the lower end of her weight range/dad is 50-70lbs overweight).
0 -
What I would love to see is a study that has people switch to a specific diet and gain weight to see if your improve your health (blood test, metabolic testing, etc..). Heck, i would even be ok if they designed a program where participates maintained weight but changed diet composition to see how much improvement was achieved.
The latter has been done in diabetics - changing diet composition without weight loss.
Personally I dislike the emphasis on weight loss for improving health because the track record of weight loss is so poor. Combine the two and you are offering a poor outlook. If diet changes can improve health markers without waiting for or relying on weight loss that has to be better. I accept that in the long run excess weight isn't healthy and weight loss is desirable, it's the reliance on it that bugs me.
It's a well known fact that diabetics need to follow a special diet routine to do well. I am pretty sure we all know the consequences of eating a high carb diet while being diabetic. Not really a great example for the general population.
Like I said, it would be interesting to see if dietary changes alone improve health markers. I know once I reach my final goal physique, I will probably do a lot more N=1 experiments to see if there are any changes in health markers. But at this time, all of them are improving with my current plan.
0 -
I think the arguments come up because the diet that is working well for weight loss may not be the best healthy diet.
I could lose weight eating an unhealthy diet if I kept my calories low. If I ate 1200 calories of 70% carbs (of mostly sugar and highly processed grains - I view these as foods that will harm my health) I would lose but my blood sugars and inflammation would not do so well, and my acne would probably return.
I am also at a normal BMI, so extra weight loss may not help my health.
Healthy diets are not always what works for people during weight loss.
I guess it would be how we determine health. Even the twinkie diet improve the guys health markers across the board. For your particular situation, it's a bit different as you have preexisting conditions (same for my wife who needs a lower carb diet). Looking as VLCD to help obese people may serve as a good example. Will eating 800 calorie give them health.... maybe not long term but losing 20-30 lbs can probably be beneficial based on their current situation.
For my situation, i tend to concentrate on calories, then protein and fats (~ 90g a day)/carbs (~240g/day) just happen to fall out. I also, tend to try to hit 20-30g of fiber and get a lot of my foods from whole sources. My blood work continues to get better every time I lose weight with the exception of LDL/HDL, but that is because of genetics. Both are those are almost exactly in line with both of my parents (my mom is at the lower end of her weight range/dad is 50-70lbs overweight).
Yes. What a healthy diet is will vary between people, but as we age the range seems to narrow somewhat as more health issues come into play.0 -
I think the arguments come up because the diet that is working well for weight loss may not be the best healthy diet.
I could lose weight eating an unhealthy diet if I kept my calories low. If I ate 1200 calories of 70% carbs (of mostly sugar and highly processed grains - I view these as foods that will harm my health) I would lose but my blood sugars and inflammation would not do so well, and my acne would probably return.
I am also at a normal BMI, so extra weight loss may not help my health.
Healthy diets are not always what works for people during weight loss.
I guess it would be how we determine health. Even the twinkie diet improve the guys health markers across the board. For your particular situation, it's a bit different as you have preexisting conditions (same for my wife who needs a lower carb diet). Looking as VLCD to help obese people may serve as a good example. Will eating 800 calorie give them health.... maybe not long term but losing 20-30 lbs can probably be beneficial based on their current situation.
For my situation, i tend to concentrate on calories, then protein and fats (~ 90g a day)/carbs (~240g/day) just happen to fall out. I also, tend to try to hit 20-30g of fiber and get a lot of my foods from whole sources. My blood work continues to get better every time I lose weight with the exception of LDL/HDL, but that is because of genetics. Both are those are almost exactly in line with both of my parents (my mom is at the lower end of her weight range/dad is 50-70lbs overweight).
Yes. What a healthy diet is will vary between people, but as we age the range seems to narrow somewhat as more health issues come into play.
Even so, genetics play a huge role. At best we can hope choices we make when we are young will improve our situation as we age its not always the case. I have known people in their 90s or higher talk about their diets (many filled with typical junk foods) and they are still kickin or lived very long lives. On the other side, there are athletes who are lean, fit and eat a lot of good foods but die young. As much as we all want to think food plays a huge role and it might but its not universally true.
0 -
I think the arguments come up because the diet that is working well for weight loss may not be the best healthy diet.
I could lose weight eating an unhealthy diet if I kept my calories low. If I ate 1200 calories of 70% carbs (of mostly sugar and highly processed grains - I view these as foods that will harm my health) I would lose but my blood sugars and inflammation would not do so well, and my acne would probably return.
I am also at a normal BMI, so extra weight loss may not help my health.
Healthy diets are not always what works for people during weight loss.
I guess it would be how we determine health. Even the twinkie diet improve the guys health markers across the board. For your particular situation, it's a bit different as you have preexisting conditions (same for my wife who needs a lower carb diet). Looking as VLCD to help obese people may serve as a good example. Will eating 800 calorie give them health.... maybe not long term but losing 20-30 lbs can probably be beneficial based on their current situation.
For my situation, i tend to concentrate on calories, then protein and fats (~ 90g a day)/carbs (~240g/day) just happen to fall out. I also, tend to try to hit 20-30g of fiber and get a lot of my foods from whole sources. My blood work continues to get better every time I lose weight with the exception of LDL/HDL, but that is because of genetics. Both are those are almost exactly in line with both of my parents (my mom is at the lower end of her weight range/dad is 50-70lbs overweight).
Yes. What a healthy diet is will vary between people, but as we age the range seems to narrow somewhat as more health issues come into play.
Even so, genetics play a huge role. At best we can hope choices we make when we are young will improve our situation as we age its not always the case. I have known people in their 90s or higher talk about their diets (many filled with typical junk foods) and they are still kickin or lived very long lives. On the other side, there are athletes who are lean, fit and eat a lot of good foods but die young. As much as we all want to think food plays a huge role and it might but its not universally true.
That's true. It's probably wise to try to err by stacking your deck in a positive way than hope you share some long lived relative's genetics. We may be unlucky, in our genetics or we may hit the jackpot, but we won't know until a health condition arises, or we are very very old.
I know the smart choice for me now; when I was younger, I felt a LOT luckier... Oops. Others will make their own choices that they can live with.0 -
@psulemon - I said it other times: you don't see too many obese people in their 80's and 90's anywhere in the world. You may know a few, but that's not the majority of their specific age population. The majority of fat people don't live long enough. And again, the majority of athletes don't drop dead that easily. Of course there are genetic issues, but that's a very low percentage.0
-
That's just an enabling outlook. "Let's just accept improvement in health without weight loss, because people don't lose weight." People don't lose weight because we live in a society that enables people constantly.
That's a point of view. If I sit in a room of Type 2 diabetics one third of whom are on insulin and half of whom are the size of small buildings I would not want to have weight loss as the only tool in the box. I think the large people know they are overweight and that this is a bad idea, and have probably been spending years in this knowledge and trying to address it. To merely offer them yet more advice on moving more and eating less would be futile and insulting. If dietary change allows them to keep their eyesight or feet while continuing to strive for lower weight then so much the better. It's something positive to offer them, weight loss is not.
0 -
I think the arguments come up because the diet that is working well for weight loss may not be the best healthy diet.
I could lose weight eating an unhealthy diet if I kept my calories low. If I ate 1200 calories of 70% carbs (of mostly sugar and highly processed grains - I view these as foods that will harm my health) I would lose but my blood sugars and inflammation would not do so well, and my acne would probably return.
I am also at a normal BMI, so extra weight loss may not help my health.
Healthy diets are not always what works for people during weight loss.
I guess it would be how we determine health. Even the twinkie diet improve the guys health markers across the board. For your particular situation, it's a bit different as you have preexisting conditions (same for my wife who needs a lower carb diet). Looking as VLCD to help obese people may serve as a good example. Will eating 800 calorie give them health.... maybe not long term but losing 20-30 lbs can probably be beneficial based on their current situation.
For my situation, i tend to concentrate on calories, then protein and fats (~ 90g a day)/carbs (~240g/day) just happen to fall out. I also, tend to try to hit 20-30g of fiber and get a lot of my foods from whole sources. My blood work continues to get better every time I lose weight with the exception of LDL/HDL, but that is because of genetics. Both are those are almost exactly in line with both of my parents (my mom is at the lower end of her weight range/dad is 50-70lbs overweight).
Yes. What a healthy diet is will vary between people, but as we age the range seems to narrow somewhat as more health issues come into play.
For a good example, I don't seem to be sat fat sensitive at all, but my dad is and lowered his cholesterol (he was never overweight and always a big exerciser) by cutting red meat and dairy fat.0 -
Like I said, it would be interesting to see if dietary changes alone improve health markers.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/16 - improving glycemia in Type 2 diabetics without weight loss. Although you say "It's a well known fact that diabetics need to follow a special diet routine to do well" this isn't the position of major diabetes organisations and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2724493/ compares a "diabetes diet" with a Paleo approach with the latter doing better - they did do that "Paleo thing" of eating less calories and losing some weight despite it not being a weight reduction protocol.
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/11/1/33 - also improving glycemia and reducing medication in Type 2 diabetics by dietary change without weight loss.
http://www.jlr.org/content/34/12/2183.full.pdf tries to unpick the effects of weight loss and dietary change on cholesterol etc, concluding that they are separate and additive.
http://www.webmail.naturalstresscare.org/Media/Christensen_1985.pdf even looks at short term effects of diet composition on emotional stress, with no time for weight loss to play a part.
The available literature probably reflects funding, and the tendency to want to reduce weight as an intervention given the general trend of the population to be overweight as well as less healthy.
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
- 404 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
- 986 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions