Low Carb Dieting - Induction Phase
Options
Replies
-
MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
But you haven't answered my question. Do you truly believe absolutes are irrelevant? Because if you do, that means you believe it doesn't matter how many calories you eat, as long as you keep the right macro percentages. I very much disagree with that.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Green veggies aren't low carb, they're low cal. Percentage wise most of the calories in veggies do in fact come from carbs. Hence why it's weird people write how they suddenly start eating things that are made mostly out of carbs after going low carb.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
Because it is LOW carb, not NO carb. Green veggies are very low carb, especially if you count net carbs. People doing low carb don't eat many STARCHY veggies, like potato, corn, peas, etc. But broccoli, all kinds of leafy salad greens, peppers, cucumbers, etc...all very low carb. You can eat plenty of them and still stay in keto.
I had two servings of broccoli, one serving of bell peppers, and one serving of Brussels sprouts with dinner tonight, and that TOTALED 11 grams of net carbs. You can easily eat plenty of veggies even in Keto...if you aren't aiming for keto but just doing more general low carb and keeping carbs under 100 or under 150, you can stuff yourself with green veggies and still easily hit those goals.
I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
I believe you are misunderstanding what lemurcat was saying to begin with. She's saying that people tend to think, for some reason, that vegetables are a benefit of eating low carb, and that they are a part of low carb eating to begin with.
When the truth is each is a stand alone way of eating. Many vegetables contain enough carbs that they are excluded from low carb diets. If people enjoy eating vegetables and want to eat them as a part of eating a low-calorie diet, it's not necessary to include low carb as a part of that. It confuses things even further, in fact, because of the added problem of worrying which vegetables are okay as part of a low carb diet and which aren't.
I've never seen a low carb eater claim eating vegetables is exclusive to low carb diets. Perhaps that's why her post was confusing to me.
And low carb eaters don't "worry" about which vegetables are okay. Anybody eating this way already knows...and if they don't it is extremely easy to find out. What you wrote is the equivalent of saying the added problem of knowing the calorie and macro content of everything you eat makes IIFYM confusing.
I've seen a few posts before where someone going low carb says they're eating much more veggies than before. It's weird.
Why is it weird? In my case, I stopped eating added sugar, bread, pasta, highly processed foods...that leaves a lot more room for other foods. And green veggies are one of the low carb options.
Green veggies are low carb. People who are deliberately trying to eat low carb typically have a specific carb number in mind. It's not simply percentages. Absolutes matter. Exmple:
The two cups of broccoli I had with dinner last night had 50 calories...it also had 4 grams of protein, 4 grams of fiber and only 4 grams of net carbs. 4 grams of net carbs in two cups of food is low carb.
Compare that 4 grams to the number of carbs in two cups of diced potato...which would be about 180 grams of net carbs and 232 calories.
Hmmm...4 vs 180. Both are veggies, but 4 is low carb and 180 is certainly not. Frankly, I don't care how the percentages work out...broccoli is low carb.
If absolutes matter then everything is low carb as long as you eat little enough of it.
So you don't believe absolutes matter? I thought that was the whole point behind CICO? Are you actually saying absolutes are irrelevant? I am shocked.
I'm saying if you're saying only the absolute numbers matter if something is low carb, then even coke is low carb as long as I have little enough of it.
Absolute numbers are irrelevant if you're trying to put an inherent attribute onto a food (i.e. veggies are low carb food), because as I said, if you're going by just the amount that is in your serving size, everything would be low carb if you adjust the serving size. Coke is low carb! Twinkies are low carb!
If you were eating nothing but broccoli (yes, I am aware of the irony) your diet wouldn't be low carb. Because veggies are mostly made out of carbs. Eggs are low carb, meat is low carb, regardless how much of them you eat you'll never have high amounts of carbs. Vegetables are not low carb, they're just low in calories so your usual serving size doesn't have a high amount of carbs.
It makes no sense to look at it that way. Just like it makes no sense to say absolute numbers are irrelevant in IIFYM. Absolute numbers ABSOLUTELY do matter. To say otherwise is just silly.
The hell are you even saying? I talking specifically about your statement that vegetables are low carb. They're not. 1500 calories of vegetables is going to have a pretty damn high amount of carbs, even in absolute numbers. The only way they aren't is if you eat little enough, so in effect, anything is low carb because you can eat little enough of it.0 -
If your plan is to only limit for 2 weeks, that will barely give your body a chance to keto adapt. There isn't much point to unless you are going to continue for at least a medium term ( 4-6 months ).0
-
stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
But you haven't answered my question. Do you truly believe absolutes are irrelevant? Because if you do, that means you believe it doesn't matter how many calories you eat, as long as you keep the right macro percentages. I very much disagree with that.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Green veggies aren't low carb, they're low cal. Percentage wise most of the calories in veggies do in fact come from carbs. Hence why it's weird people write how they suddenly start eating things that are made mostly out of carbs after going low carb.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
Because it is LOW carb, not NO carb. Green veggies are very low carb, especially if you count net carbs. People doing low carb don't eat many STARCHY veggies, like potato, corn, peas, etc. But broccoli, all kinds of leafy salad greens, peppers, cucumbers, etc...all very low carb. You can eat plenty of them and still stay in keto.
I had two servings of broccoli, one serving of bell peppers, and one serving of Brussels sprouts with dinner tonight, and that TOTALED 11 grams of net carbs. You can easily eat plenty of veggies even in Keto...if you aren't aiming for keto but just doing more general low carb and keeping carbs under 100 or under 150, you can stuff yourself with green veggies and still easily hit those goals.
I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
I believe you are misunderstanding what lemurcat was saying to begin with. She's saying that people tend to think, for some reason, that vegetables are a benefit of eating low carb, and that they are a part of low carb eating to begin with.
When the truth is each is a stand alone way of eating. Many vegetables contain enough carbs that they are excluded from low carb diets. If people enjoy eating vegetables and want to eat them as a part of eating a low-calorie diet, it's not necessary to include low carb as a part of that. It confuses things even further, in fact, because of the added problem of worrying which vegetables are okay as part of a low carb diet and which aren't.
I've never seen a low carb eater claim eating vegetables is exclusive to low carb diets. Perhaps that's why her post was confusing to me.
And low carb eaters don't "worry" about which vegetables are okay. Anybody eating this way already knows...and if they don't it is extremely easy to find out. What you wrote is the equivalent of saying the added problem of knowing the calorie and macro content of everything you eat makes IIFYM confusing.
I've seen a few posts before where someone going low carb says they're eating much more veggies than before. It's weird.
Why is it weird? In my case, I stopped eating added sugar, bread, pasta, highly processed foods...that leaves a lot more room for other foods. And green veggies are one of the low carb options.
Green veggies are low carb. People who are deliberately trying to eat low carb typically have a specific carb number in mind. It's not simply percentages. Absolutes matter. Exmple:
The two cups of broccoli I had with dinner last night had 50 calories...it also had 4 grams of protein, 4 grams of fiber and only 4 grams of net carbs. 4 grams of net carbs in two cups of food is low carb.
Compare that 4 grams to the number of carbs in two cups of diced potato...which would be about 180 grams of net carbs and 232 calories.
Hmmm...4 vs 180. Both are veggies, but 4 is low carb and 180 is certainly not. Frankly, I don't care how the percentages work out...broccoli is low carb.
If absolutes matter then everything is low carb as long as you eat little enough of it.
So you don't believe absolutes matter? I thought that was the whole point behind CICO? Are you actually saying absolutes are irrelevant? I am shocked.
I'm saying if you're saying only the absolute numbers matter if something is low carb, then even coke is low carb as long as I have little enough of it.
Absolute numbers are irrelevant if you're trying to put an inherent attribute onto a food (i.e. veggies are low carb food), because as I said, if you're going by just the amount that is in your serving size, everything would be low carb if you adjust the serving size. Coke is low carb! Twinkies are low carb!
If you were eating nothing but broccoli (yes, I am aware of the irony) your diet wouldn't be low carb. Because veggies are mostly made out of carbs. Eggs are low carb, meat is low carb, regardless how much of them you eat you'll never have high amounts of carbs. Vegetables are not low carb, they're just low in calories so your usual serving size doesn't have a high amount of carbs.
It makes no sense to look at it that way. Just like it makes no sense to say absolute numbers are irrelevant in IIFYM. Absolute numbers ABSOLUTELY do matter. To say otherwise is just silly.
The hell are you even saying? I talking specifically about your statement that vegetables are low carb. They're not. 1500 calories of vegetables is going to have a pretty damn high amount of carbs, even in absolute numbers. The only way they aren't is if you eat little enough, so in effect, anything is low carb because you can eat little enough of it.
As the OP, I will say this. I see what you are getting at. An apple exceeds my daily amount of net carbs, but if I eat a very small portion of it, perhaps a bite, I would not have exceeded 20 grams.0 -
-
Read the first page of this thread and I have to say it's pretty lol.0
-
I don't think I could possibly even eat 1500 calories worth of non starchy veggies in a day. The sheer volume of food that would be makes it impractical.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
But you haven't answered my question. Do you truly believe absolutes are irrelevant? Because if you do, that means you believe it doesn't matter how many calories you eat, as long as you keep the right macro percentages. I very much disagree with that.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Green veggies aren't low carb, they're low cal. Percentage wise most of the calories in veggies do in fact come from carbs. Hence why it's weird people write how they suddenly start eating things that are made mostly out of carbs after going low carb.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
Because it is LOW carb, not NO carb. Green veggies are very low carb, especially if you count net carbs. People doing low carb don't eat many STARCHY veggies, like potato, corn, peas, etc. But broccoli, all kinds of leafy salad greens, peppers, cucumbers, etc...all very low carb. You can eat plenty of them and still stay in keto.
I had two servings of broccoli, one serving of bell peppers, and one serving of Brussels sprouts with dinner tonight, and that TOTALED 11 grams of net carbs. You can easily eat plenty of veggies even in Keto...if you aren't aiming for keto but just doing more general low carb and keeping carbs under 100 or under 150, you can stuff yourself with green veggies and still easily hit those goals.
I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
I believe you are misunderstanding what lemurcat was saying to begin with. She's saying that people tend to think, for some reason, that vegetables are a benefit of eating low carb, and that they are a part of low carb eating to begin with.
When the truth is each is a stand alone way of eating. Many vegetables contain enough carbs that they are excluded from low carb diets. If people enjoy eating vegetables and want to eat them as a part of eating a low-calorie diet, it's not necessary to include low carb as a part of that. It confuses things even further, in fact, because of the added problem of worrying which vegetables are okay as part of a low carb diet and which aren't.
I've never seen a low carb eater claim eating vegetables is exclusive to low carb diets. Perhaps that's why her post was confusing to me.
And low carb eaters don't "worry" about which vegetables are okay. Anybody eating this way already knows...and if they don't it is extremely easy to find out. What you wrote is the equivalent of saying the added problem of knowing the calorie and macro content of everything you eat makes IIFYM confusing.
I've seen a few posts before where someone going low carb says they're eating much more veggies than before. It's weird.
Why is it weird? In my case, I stopped eating added sugar, bread, pasta, highly processed foods...that leaves a lot more room for other foods. And green veggies are one of the low carb options.
Green veggies are low carb. People who are deliberately trying to eat low carb typically have a specific carb number in mind. It's not simply percentages. Absolutes matter. Exmple:
The two cups of broccoli I had with dinner last night had 50 calories...it also had 4 grams of protein, 4 grams of fiber and only 4 grams of net carbs. 4 grams of net carbs in two cups of food is low carb.
Compare that 4 grams to the number of carbs in two cups of diced potato...which would be about 180 grams of net carbs and 232 calories.
Hmmm...4 vs 180. Both are veggies, but 4 is low carb and 180 is certainly not. Frankly, I don't care how the percentages work out...broccoli is low carb.
If absolutes matter then everything is low carb as long as you eat little enough of it.
So you don't believe absolutes matter? I thought that was the whole point behind CICO? Are you actually saying absolutes are irrelevant? I am shocked.
I'm saying if you're saying only the absolute numbers matter if something is low carb, then even coke is low carb as long as I have little enough of it.
Absolute numbers are irrelevant if you're trying to put an inherent attribute onto a food (i.e. veggies are low carb food), because as I said, if you're going by just the amount that is in your serving size, everything would be low carb if you adjust the serving size. Coke is low carb! Twinkies are low carb!
If you were eating nothing but broccoli (yes, I am aware of the irony) your diet wouldn't be low carb. Because veggies are mostly made out of carbs. Eggs are low carb, meat is low carb, regardless how much of them you eat you'll never have high amounts of carbs. Vegetables are not low carb, they're just low in calories so your usual serving size doesn't have a high amount of carbs.
It makes no sense to look at it that way. Just like it makes no sense to say absolute numbers are irrelevant in IIFYM. Absolute numbers ABSOLUTELY do matter. To say otherwise is just silly.
The hell are you even saying? I talking specifically about your statement that vegetables are low carb. They're not. 1500 calories of vegetables is going to have a pretty damn high amount of carbs, even in absolute numbers. The only way they aren't is if you eat little enough, so in effect, anything is low carb because you can eat little enough of it.
A serving of green vegetables has a low single digit number of net carbs. That is low carb.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Green veggies aren't low carb, they're low cal. Percentage wise most of the calories in veggies do in fact come from carbs. Hence why it's weird people write how they suddenly start eating things that are made mostly out of carbs after going low carb. And it's not like there's no room for veggies in a balanced diet, that's just sillly, you don't have to stop eating half a dozen food groups in order to fit in some veggies. I'm with Lemurcat here. They were just eating suboptimally before they went low carb.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
Because it is LOW carb, not NO carb. Green veggies are very low carb, especially if you count net carbs. People doing low carb don't eat many STARCHY veggies, like potato, corn, peas, etc. But broccoli, all kinds of leafy salad greens, peppers, cucumbers, etc...all very low carb. You can eat plenty of them and still stay in keto.
I had two servings of broccoli, one serving of bell peppers, and one serving of Brussels sprouts with dinner tonight, and that TOTALED 11 grams of net carbs. You can easily eat plenty of veggies even in Keto...if you aren't aiming for keto but just doing more general low carb and keeping carbs under 100 or under 150, you can stuff yourself with green veggies and still easily hit those goals.
I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
I believe you are misunderstanding what lemurcat was saying to begin with. She's saying that people tend to think, for some reason, that vegetables are a benefit of eating low carb, and that they are a part of low carb eating to begin with.
When the truth is each is a stand alone way of eating. Many vegetables contain enough carbs that they are excluded from low carb diets. If people enjoy eating vegetables and want to eat them as a part of eating a low-calorie diet, it's not necessary to include low carb as a part of that. It confuses things even further, in fact, because of the added problem of worrying which vegetables are okay as part of a low carb diet and which aren't.
I've never seen a low carb eater claim eating vegetables is exclusive to low carb diets. Perhaps that's why her post was confusing to me.
And low carb eaters don't "worry" about which vegetables are okay. Anybody eating this way already knows...and if they don't it is extremely easy to find out. What you wrote is the equivalent of saying the added problem of knowing the calorie and macro content of everything you eat makes IIFYM confusing.
I've seen a few posts before where someone going low carb says they're eating much more veggies than before. It's weird.
Why is it weird? In my case, I stopped eating added sugar, bread, pasta, highly processed foods...that leaves a lot more room for other foods. And green veggies are one of the low carb options.
Please tell me who said there is no room for veggies in a balanced diet. I certainly never did, so do not try to be cute and deliberately misinterpret what I wrote. When I was obese I chose to eat junk over more veggies. Yes, that is certainly suboptimal. Could I have also eaten more veggies without eliminating anything? Was there "room"? Maybe, if I wanted to literally eat until sick I'm sure I could have shoved some more veggies down my throat on top of all the junk I was already eating. ...but since I was never so out of control that I ate until I threw up I didn't choose to do that.
When I cut out the crappy high carb highly processed food and was ready to focus on health I still needed to fuel my body. Now...making good choices...I do eat more veggies than I ever did before.
And you could have chosen to eat less of these things and have room for veggies, just like you're now choosing to have veggies (high in carbs percentage wise) instead of more fat.
Yes, so what is your point exactly? I said above I chose to eat what I did. And then I chose to eat differently. I NEVER said you MUST eat low carb to eat a lot of veggies. I said I eat many more veggies now that I eat low carb. Two very different statements.
I too found that when I switched to low carb I paid more attention to my veg, in particular green leafy veg (great source of magnesium and calcium).
Also it became more appealing to me as I cook it in butter with chopped up bacon.
Fat makes everything taste better! LOL! That's one of the nice perks about this way of eating, no cutting fat at the expense of flavor.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I don't think I could possibly even eat 1500 calories worth of non starchy veggies in a day. The sheer volume of food that would be makes it impractical.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
But you haven't answered my question. Do you truly believe absolutes are irrelevant? Because if you do, that means you believe it doesn't matter how many calories you eat, as long as you keep the right macro percentages. I very much disagree with that.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Green veggies aren't low carb, they're low cal. Percentage wise most of the calories in veggies do in fact come from carbs. Hence why it's weird people write how they suddenly start eating things that are made mostly out of carbs after going low carb.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
Because it is LOW carb, not NO carb. Green veggies are very low carb, especially if you count net carbs. People doing low carb don't eat many STARCHY veggies, like potato, corn, peas, etc. But broccoli, all kinds of leafy salad greens, peppers, cucumbers, etc...all very low carb. You can eat plenty of them and still stay in keto.
I had two servings of broccoli, one serving of bell peppers, and one serving of Brussels sprouts with dinner tonight, and that TOTALED 11 grams of net carbs. You can easily eat plenty of veggies even in Keto...if you aren't aiming for keto but just doing more general low carb and keeping carbs under 100 or under 150, you can stuff yourself with green veggies and still easily hit those goals.
I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
I believe you are misunderstanding what lemurcat was saying to begin with. She's saying that people tend to think, for some reason, that vegetables are a benefit of eating low carb, and that they are a part of low carb eating to begin with.
When the truth is each is a stand alone way of eating. Many vegetables contain enough carbs that they are excluded from low carb diets. If people enjoy eating vegetables and want to eat them as a part of eating a low-calorie diet, it's not necessary to include low carb as a part of that. It confuses things even further, in fact, because of the added problem of worrying which vegetables are okay as part of a low carb diet and which aren't.
I've never seen a low carb eater claim eating vegetables is exclusive to low carb diets. Perhaps that's why her post was confusing to me.
And low carb eaters don't "worry" about which vegetables are okay. Anybody eating this way already knows...and if they don't it is extremely easy to find out. What you wrote is the equivalent of saying the added problem of knowing the calorie and macro content of everything you eat makes IIFYM confusing.
I've seen a few posts before where someone going low carb says they're eating much more veggies than before. It's weird.
Why is it weird? In my case, I stopped eating added sugar, bread, pasta, highly processed foods...that leaves a lot more room for other foods. And green veggies are one of the low carb options.
Green veggies are low carb. People who are deliberately trying to eat low carb typically have a specific carb number in mind. It's not simply percentages. Absolutes matter. Exmple:
The two cups of broccoli I had with dinner last night had 50 calories...it also had 4 grams of protein, 4 grams of fiber and only 4 grams of net carbs. 4 grams of net carbs in two cups of food is low carb.
Compare that 4 grams to the number of carbs in two cups of diced potato...which would be about 180 grams of net carbs and 232 calories.
Hmmm...4 vs 180. Both are veggies, but 4 is low carb and 180 is certainly not. Frankly, I don't care how the percentages work out...broccoli is low carb.
If absolutes matter then everything is low carb as long as you eat little enough of it.
So you don't believe absolutes matter? I thought that was the whole point behind CICO? Are you actually saying absolutes are irrelevant? I am shocked.
I'm saying if you're saying only the absolute numbers matter if something is low carb, then even coke is low carb as long as I have little enough of it.
Absolute numbers are irrelevant if you're trying to put an inherent attribute onto a food (i.e. veggies are low carb food), because as I said, if you're going by just the amount that is in your serving size, everything would be low carb if you adjust the serving size. Coke is low carb! Twinkies are low carb!
If you were eating nothing but broccoli (yes, I am aware of the irony) your diet wouldn't be low carb. Because veggies are mostly made out of carbs. Eggs are low carb, meat is low carb, regardless how much of them you eat you'll never have high amounts of carbs. Vegetables are not low carb, they're just low in calories so your usual serving size doesn't have a high amount of carbs.
It makes no sense to look at it that way. Just like it makes no sense to say absolute numbers are irrelevant in IIFYM. Absolute numbers ABSOLUTELY do matter. To say otherwise is just silly.
The hell are you even saying? I talking specifically about your statement that vegetables are low carb. They're not. 1500 calories of vegetables is going to have a pretty damn high amount of carbs, even in absolute numbers. The only way they aren't is if you eat little enough, so in effect, anything is low carb because you can eat little enough of it.
A serving of green vegetables has a low single digit number of net carbs. That is low carb.
It has also a low number of fat and protein, even less than carbs usually, it's low everything which makes it low cal.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I don't think I could possibly even eat 1500 calories worth of non starchy veggies in a day. The sheer volume of food that would be makes it impractical.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
But you haven't answered my question. Do you truly believe absolutes are irrelevant? Because if you do, that means you believe it doesn't matter how many calories you eat, as long as you keep the right macro percentages. I very much disagree with that.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Green veggies aren't low carb, they're low cal. Percentage wise most of the calories in veggies do in fact come from carbs. Hence why it's weird people write how they suddenly start eating things that are made mostly out of carbs after going low carb.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
Because it is LOW carb, not NO carb. Green veggies are very low carb, especially if you count net carbs. People doing low carb don't eat many STARCHY veggies, like potato, corn, peas, etc. But broccoli, all kinds of leafy salad greens, peppers, cucumbers, etc...all very low carb. You can eat plenty of them and still stay in keto.
I had two servings of broccoli, one serving of bell peppers, and one serving of Brussels sprouts with dinner tonight, and that TOTALED 11 grams of net carbs. You can easily eat plenty of veggies even in Keto...if you aren't aiming for keto but just doing more general low carb and keeping carbs under 100 or under 150, you can stuff yourself with green veggies and still easily hit those goals.
I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
I believe you are misunderstanding what lemurcat was saying to begin with. She's saying that people tend to think, for some reason, that vegetables are a benefit of eating low carb, and that they are a part of low carb eating to begin with.
When the truth is each is a stand alone way of eating. Many vegetables contain enough carbs that they are excluded from low carb diets. If people enjoy eating vegetables and want to eat them as a part of eating a low-calorie diet, it's not necessary to include low carb as a part of that. It confuses things even further, in fact, because of the added problem of worrying which vegetables are okay as part of a low carb diet and which aren't.
I've never seen a low carb eater claim eating vegetables is exclusive to low carb diets. Perhaps that's why her post was confusing to me.
And low carb eaters don't "worry" about which vegetables are okay. Anybody eating this way already knows...and if they don't it is extremely easy to find out. What you wrote is the equivalent of saying the added problem of knowing the calorie and macro content of everything you eat makes IIFYM confusing.
I've seen a few posts before where someone going low carb says they're eating much more veggies than before. It's weird.
Why is it weird? In my case, I stopped eating added sugar, bread, pasta, highly processed foods...that leaves a lot more room for other foods. And green veggies are one of the low carb options.
Green veggies are low carb. People who are deliberately trying to eat low carb typically have a specific carb number in mind. It's not simply percentages. Absolutes matter. Exmple:
The two cups of broccoli I had with dinner last night had 50 calories...it also had 4 grams of protein, 4 grams of fiber and only 4 grams of net carbs. 4 grams of net carbs in two cups of food is low carb.
Compare that 4 grams to the number of carbs in two cups of diced potato...which would be about 180 grams of net carbs and 232 calories.
Hmmm...4 vs 180. Both are veggies, but 4 is low carb and 180 is certainly not. Frankly, I don't care how the percentages work out...broccoli is low carb.
If absolutes matter then everything is low carb as long as you eat little enough of it.
So you don't believe absolutes matter? I thought that was the whole point behind CICO? Are you actually saying absolutes are irrelevant? I am shocked.
I'm saying if you're saying only the absolute numbers matter if something is low carb, then even coke is low carb as long as I have little enough of it.
Absolute numbers are irrelevant if you're trying to put an inherent attribute onto a food (i.e. veggies are low carb food), because as I said, if you're going by just the amount that is in your serving size, everything would be low carb if you adjust the serving size. Coke is low carb! Twinkies are low carb!
If you were eating nothing but broccoli (yes, I am aware of the irony) your diet wouldn't be low carb. Because veggies are mostly made out of carbs. Eggs are low carb, meat is low carb, regardless how much of them you eat you'll never have high amounts of carbs. Vegetables are not low carb, they're just low in calories so your usual serving size doesn't have a high amount of carbs.
It makes no sense to look at it that way. Just like it makes no sense to say absolute numbers are irrelevant in IIFYM. Absolute numbers ABSOLUTELY do matter. To say otherwise is just silly.
The hell are you even saying? I talking specifically about your statement that vegetables are low carb. They're not. 1500 calories of vegetables is going to have a pretty damn high amount of carbs, even in absolute numbers. The only way they aren't is if you eat little enough, so in effect, anything is low carb because you can eat little enough of it.
A serving of green vegetables has a low single digit number of net carbs. That is low carb.
It has also a low number of fat and protein, even less than carbs usually, it's low everything which makes it low cal.
It is low everything...other than micronutrients. But low cal and low carb and low fat and low protein aren't mutually exclusive terms. A given food can fit in several categories.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I don't think I could possibly even eat 1500 calories worth of non starchy veggies in a day. The sheer volume of food that would be makes it impractical.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »
But you haven't answered my question. Do you truly believe absolutes are irrelevant? Because if you do, that means you believe it doesn't matter how many calories you eat, as long as you keep the right macro percentages. I very much disagree with that.stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Green veggies aren't low carb, they're low cal. Percentage wise most of the calories in veggies do in fact come from carbs. Hence why it's weird people write how they suddenly start eating things that are made mostly out of carbs after going low carb.MoiAussi93 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »MoiAussi93 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
Because it is LOW carb, not NO carb. Green veggies are very low carb, especially if you count net carbs. People doing low carb don't eat many STARCHY veggies, like potato, corn, peas, etc. But broccoli, all kinds of leafy salad greens, peppers, cucumbers, etc...all very low carb. You can eat plenty of them and still stay in keto.
I had two servings of broccoli, one serving of bell peppers, and one serving of Brussels sprouts with dinner tonight, and that TOTALED 11 grams of net carbs. You can easily eat plenty of veggies even in Keto...if you aren't aiming for keto but just doing more general low carb and keeping carbs under 100 or under 150, you can stuff yourself with green veggies and still easily hit those goals.
I love veggies too. Since they are carbs, I've never understood why some seem to think they are a benefit of a low carb diet. You can eat lots of veggies without going low carb -- in fact, mine put me over the net carb limit that some seem to think is ideal for keto.
That said, low carb may be a great choice for some for other reasons.
I believe you are misunderstanding what lemurcat was saying to begin with. She's saying that people tend to think, for some reason, that vegetables are a benefit of eating low carb, and that they are a part of low carb eating to begin with.
When the truth is each is a stand alone way of eating. Many vegetables contain enough carbs that they are excluded from low carb diets. If people enjoy eating vegetables and want to eat them as a part of eating a low-calorie diet, it's not necessary to include low carb as a part of that. It confuses things even further, in fact, because of the added problem of worrying which vegetables are okay as part of a low carb diet and which aren't.
I've never seen a low carb eater claim eating vegetables is exclusive to low carb diets. Perhaps that's why her post was confusing to me.
And low carb eaters don't "worry" about which vegetables are okay. Anybody eating this way already knows...and if they don't it is extremely easy to find out. What you wrote is the equivalent of saying the added problem of knowing the calorie and macro content of everything you eat makes IIFYM confusing.
I've seen a few posts before where someone going low carb says they're eating much more veggies than before. It's weird.
Why is it weird? In my case, I stopped eating added sugar, bread, pasta, highly processed foods...that leaves a lot more room for other foods. And green veggies are one of the low carb options.
Green veggies are low carb. People who are deliberately trying to eat low carb typically have a specific carb number in mind. It's not simply percentages. Absolutes matter. Exmple:
The two cups of broccoli I had with dinner last night had 50 calories...it also had 4 grams of protein, 4 grams of fiber and only 4 grams of net carbs. 4 grams of net carbs in two cups of food is low carb.
Compare that 4 grams to the number of carbs in two cups of diced potato...which would be about 180 grams of net carbs and 232 calories.
Hmmm...4 vs 180. Both are veggies, but 4 is low carb and 180 is certainly not. Frankly, I don't care how the percentages work out...broccoli is low carb.
If absolutes matter then everything is low carb as long as you eat little enough of it.
So you don't believe absolutes matter? I thought that was the whole point behind CICO? Are you actually saying absolutes are irrelevant? I am shocked.
I'm saying if you're saying only the absolute numbers matter if something is low carb, then even coke is low carb as long as I have little enough of it.
Absolute numbers are irrelevant if you're trying to put an inherent attribute onto a food (i.e. veggies are low carb food), because as I said, if you're going by just the amount that is in your serving size, everything would be low carb if you adjust the serving size. Coke is low carb! Twinkies are low carb!
If you were eating nothing but broccoli (yes, I am aware of the irony) your diet wouldn't be low carb. Because veggies are mostly made out of carbs. Eggs are low carb, meat is low carb, regardless how much of them you eat you'll never have high amounts of carbs. Vegetables are not low carb, they're just low in calories so your usual serving size doesn't have a high amount of carbs.
It makes no sense to look at it that way. Just like it makes no sense to say absolute numbers are irrelevant in IIFYM. Absolute numbers ABSOLUTELY do matter. To say otherwise is just silly.
The hell are you even saying? I talking specifically about your statement that vegetables are low carb. They're not. 1500 calories of vegetables is going to have a pretty damn high amount of carbs, even in absolute numbers. The only way they aren't is if you eat little enough, so in effect, anything is low carb because you can eat little enough of it.
A serving of green vegetables has a low single digit number of net carbs. That is low carb.
It has also a low number of fat and protein, even less than carbs usually, it's low everything which makes it low cal.
It is low everything...other than micronutrients. But low cal and low carb and low fat and low protein aren't mutually exclusive terms. A given food can fit in several categories.
But only if you have little enough of it. If you had more, it would stop being low carb. Compare that to meat or eggs etc., even if you filled your entire day with nothing else, it would still be low carb. That's the difference, they're inherently low carb while the vegetables only are when eaten in specific quantities.
Another example, peanut butter is considered high in protein. But it has even more fat, so it rarely fits in anyone's higher protein diet properly, so it's not really high in protein if it hinders your protein goals if you're trying to hit your calories with it and hinders your calorie goals if you're trying to hit your protein with it.
In the same way, vegetables hinder your other macronutrient goals somewhat if you're trying to eat low carb because it makes your carbs rise faster than the other macros. 100 calories of mixed salad I had yesterday had 18 grams of carbs, 0 fat and 5 protein. It doesn't take much to see if I had more salad than that where my macros would go, directly against someone trying to do LCHF.0 -
Eggs have some carbs in them as well. If you ate dozens of eggs, you would also exceed carb counts on very low carb diets. That doesn't mean eggs aren't low carb though. Thanks, you have proven my point with your example.But only if you have little enough of it. If you had more, it would stop being low carb. Compare that to meat or eggs etc., even if you filled your entire day with nothing else, it would still be low carb. That's the difference, they're inherently low carb while the vegetables only are when eaten in specific quantities.
There is a difference between LOW and NO. Anything that is low anything, if taken to very high levels, will still add up to a significant amount. Just use some common sense.
Great, you claim green veggies are low cal. Well, if you eat 3,000 calories worth of veggies do they stop being low cal? No, they do not. But your diet does. It's the same thing with carb counts.
It's like all the people who continuously declare that ice cream is healthy eaten daily in "moderation" (the "there are no such thing as unhealthy foods" crowd). It's not a healthy diet if you eat nothing but ice cream, but they would deny the ice cream itself is unhealthy...just your overall diet.
I aim for 111 grams of protein a day. That may not be high to you, but it is more than twice the RDA for women so to the general public and most doctors that is high protein. And I eat peanut butter almost every day...sometimes two servings. So it fits VERY easily into my high protein diet and my relatively low calorie diet, thank you very much. But sure, if I was an idiot and ate nothing but peanut butter I would be unable to hit my protein goals and stay under my calorie goals. But luckily, I, like most people, don't choose to eat just one food all day every day so I have never had this problem.Another example, peanut butter is considered high in protein. But it has even more fat, so it rarely fits in anyone's higher protein diet properly, so it's not really high in protein if it hinders your protein goals if you're trying to hit your calories with it and hinders your calorie goals if you're trying to hit your protein with it.
Uhh...not true. First to really judge I would need to know exactly was in the "mixed salad" you had. All veggies, no dressing that contained carbs, croutons, pecans, apples, sugared cranberries, other non green vegetable ingredients? Salad is a term that is used very loosely. If you actually had 18 grams just in green vegetables, that was a large salad (I mean a cup of raw spinach is less than one gram of net carbs, so...) and should have been filling because that's a lot of fiber.100 calories of mixed salad I had yesterday had 18 grams of carbs, 0 fat and 5 protein. It doesn't take much to see if I had more salad than that where my macros would go, directly against someone trying to do LCHF.
But regardless (I don't really care about your salad recipe) 18 grams of carbs (whether veggies or other things) fits in just about all LCHF diets, even ketogenic ones which are at the far low end of the scale. And even many doing ketogenic diets can eat higher levels of carbs...many people can eat 50 grams (some even higher) and still be in ketosis so they could eat plenty of your "mixed salad".
And many people doing LCHF are NOT trying to keep carbs low enough to stay ketogenic so they might be eating 75, 100 grams of carbs a day or more. In which case they could eat your salad with every meal and have no problems.
So to summarize for the TLDR crowd, green veggies are low carb.
0 -
robinpurcell1 wrote: »I'm just starting LCHF. So I need help/advice on where to set my macros for the induction phase. Calorie count as well?
I don't know why I've never tried this before. I love veggies & everything else I've seen in the numerous recipes etc. Hoping to kickstart a significant weight loss. Needing to lose about 70lbs....
If you want some good LCHF advice and information, join the low carb group. I find the discussions in there really helpful!
0 -
Broccoli's calories are 75% carbs. That's a far cry from eggs. Kohlrabi's calories are 87% from carbs -- practically potato territory. So low cal, not low carb. In fact, essentially "carbs" just as rice or a potato or a banana are.
Can they fit into a low carb diet? Sure, just like a higher calorie food can fit into a low cal diet. No one questions that.
But it makes no sense to claim a benefit of doing a low carb diet is eating more foods that are mostly carbs. If someone does include plenty of vegetables in a low carb diet, that's great, of course, but nothing was stopping that person from including those vegetables in his or her non low carb diet. People should eat vegetables, IMO.0 -
I had 2 cups of broccoli for dinner tonight (along with a large burger, cheese, and a cheese dip). I think the broccoli was about 7g carbs. My total carbs for the day was 12g... A bit lower than normal.
The broccoli was my highest carb (percentage of carbs per calories) today, but I still consider it, and other green veggies to be lower carb compared to other veggies. I also consider it low carb because I can not eat enough of it to make it high carb. Two cups was my broccoli threshold.
Funnily enough, my carb pile was larger than my husband's at dinner. He chose baked beans and rice over broccoli. LCHF isn't always low veggie, and moderate carb is not always higher in veggies... I believe there are even some vegetarian low carb eaters around the boards.0 -
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.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.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.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »12 g net carbs for a whole day seems low veggie to me.
5 WHO portions of 80g @ 3 g carbs per 100g gets you to 12g. Some people on Atkins induction complain that 12-15 grams of carbs from veg is "too much".
To people that think eating a whole cauliflower is normal then I guess it might seems low veg, to the beige food brigade it looks alarmingly high veg.
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.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