to carb or not too carb?
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »healthyrachel1979 wrote: »Thoughts?
my thoughts are that carbs aren't this great demon that the diet and fitness industry is currently making them out to be...
most people who eat anything remotely resembling the SAD could stand to balance out their diets a bit more by moderating carbohydrate intake to an extent...and more important could stand to make better decisions overall in RE to what makes up the bulk of their carbohydrate intake...but carbs aren't this evil thing that everyone seems to want to make them out to be.
there are a lot of healthy, nutritious sources of carbohydrates. my diet is largely inspired by the Mediterranean diet...the foundation of which is nutritious sources of carbohydrates like veggies and fruit, whole grains, legumes, potatoes, etc...
and in RE to medical conditions, my dad was a type II diabetic and I worked with him and his dietitian for a couple of years...she never even suggested low carb...better choices? yes. moderating intake? yes...but she never suggested in anyway that my dad needed to go low carb or keto to keep his diabetes under control. in MFP land though, it seems a given that any medical condition auto requires keto...it's all pretty ridiculous IMO.
I'll have to see if I can find it, but there's an article linking to some studies done that about 1% of the population actually has a medical need to have little to no carbs. My husband is T2 and he restricts his carb intake, but that's all part of his overall glucose intake and nothing else. So yeah, you'll end up with a lot of people self-diagnosing that they need a low carb diet when they really just need to eat less overall. ><
Low carb right now is another fad diet that will fade over time that people will try because they want a quick fix. Yeah, it can work for some people, but some people are perfectly happy cutting out carbs. If you're not, you're just going to make yourself miserable.
There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.
Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?
Track exercise? The forums? The friends?
While it can be used to track macros, you can also remove all macros from the list of things being counted so it's no more a macro counting site than it is a micro counting site.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »healthyrachel1979 wrote: »Thoughts?
...and in RE to medical conditions, my dad was a type II diabetic and I worked with him and his dietitian for a couple of years...she never even suggested low carb...better choices? yes. moderating intake? yes...but she never suggested in anyway that my dad needed to go low carb or keto to keep his diabetes under control. in MFP land though, it seems a given that any medical condition auto requires keto...it's all pretty ridiculous IMO.
I have prediabetes. My endocrinologist's only advice was eat leaner meats and more fruits and veggies (carbs). Eat more carbs? Hmm, no. In my experience, doctors do not always give ideal advice, espeially when it comes to nutrition.
Eating a low, or lower, carb diet, along with losing excess weight and starting an exercise program (even if just walking) is considered to be pretty standard advice for diabetics now a days. It works for most diabetics, and may prevent the need for medications to be given.
Ketosis is a vLCHF diet that is also proven to help diabetics, but many do not want to try it or have not heard of it.
I don't think I've seen anyone say that all diabetics, or anyone with a medical condition requires keto, but the diet can help many health problems and people.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.
Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?
You can also track vitamins and minerals. Very important, especially for those who don't take a multivitamin. Even more important if you're vegan and only taking B12.
Even then, MFP only tracks Vitamins A and C, and iron and calcium.
Yeah, but I wasn't going to mention there are better sites for that. Now that you've mentioned it, there are. Of course in the future MFP might also allow us to track those things, too. Would be great!
There are better sites than MFP for a lot of things. This is no secret.
I do think this site has, hands down, the best forum and friends list possibilities for those who need a community, though. Best I've found, anyway. I really get motivated with forum back and forth, including the fun silly threads.
0 -
jennifer_417 wrote: »Unless you have specific health conditions, low carb is totally unnecessary for losing weight.
I hope you're realizing that we're approaching a time when up to 50% of a population may have these specific health issues, sometimes as early as the age of three.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.
Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?
Track exercise? The forums? The friends?
While it can be used to track macros, you can also remove all macros from the list of things being counted so it's no more a macro counting site than it is a micro counting site.
Okay, while I understand that there are other uses for the site, I guess I don't understand why someone would come into the forums and question why others would find it helpful to track macros and/or calories.
But then again, there are some people on this forum who seem to need 2 argue with every other poster in almost every thread.
I guess I'll just never understand.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.
Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?
Track exercise? The forums? The friends?
While it can be used to track macros, you can also remove all macros from the list of things being counted so it's no more a macro counting site than it is a micro counting site.
Okay, while I understand that there are other uses for the site, I guess I don't understand why someone would come into the forums and question why others would find it helpful to track macros and/or calories.
But then again, there are some people on this forum who seem to need 2 argue with every other poster in almost every thread.
I guess I'll just never understand.
I think the point is that yes, tracking of cals/macros is a useful part of this site. But it's not the ONLY useful purpose -- some come for many other reasons too, and that's okay. So some may not choose to use the cal/macro tracking feature and still reap considerable value from this site.
0 -
I call shenanigans!! That would never happen...Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.
Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?
Track exercise? The forums? The friends?
While it can be used to track macros, you can also remove all macros from the list of things being counted so it's no more a macro counting site than it is a micro counting site.
Okay, while I understand that there are other uses for the site, I guess I don't understand why someone would come into the forums and question why others would find it helpful to track macros and/or calories.
But then again, there are some people on this forum who seem to need 2 argue with every other poster in almost every thread.
I guess I'll just never understand.
/sarcasm0 -
Carbs. I like them and I like barely feeling like I'm on a diet.
I used to be a little annoyed when people would say "This isn't a diet, it's a lifestyle". I would think, "Oh really? You plan on maintaining a calorie deficit the rest of your life? IT'S A DIET." But my deficit is set so low now that it IS more like a "rest of my life" eating style than it is a diet. So I am practising those good habits, and I will have to change very little when I get to maintenance. To me it makes more sense than switching to low carb for a period of time and then having to figure out how to reincorporate carbs without regaining weight.
Otoh, if I ever have an event where I felt pressure to look my skinniest, I think I would low carb for a week or two before.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
I think that is what I said -- those with good insulin sensitivity lost more with more carbs. And those with insulin resistance lost more with less carbs. My exact words were:The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs.
andIf I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
Generally, the group with diabetes and prediabetes would fall into the insulin resistant group, but I'd have to go back and see what exactly was the A1C cut off.
What part isn't quite jiving for you?
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.
I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.
I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)
Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.
In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.
I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)
Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.
In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.
This x1000.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.
I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)
Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.
In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.
This x1000.
Yes, I agree with that.
(Which is why none of us can answer OP's question. And recommending that everyone lower carbs is bad advice.)0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Carbs. I like them and I like barely feeling like I'm on a diet.
I used to be a little annoyed when people would say "This isn't a diet, it's a lifestyle". I would think, "Oh really? You plan on maintaining a calorie deficit the rest of your life? IT'S A DIET." But my deficit is set so low now that it IS more like a "rest of my life" eating style than it is a diet. So I am practising those good habits, and I will have to change very little when I get to maintenance. To me it makes more sense than switching to low carb for a period of time and then having to figure out how to reincorporate carbs without regaining weight.
This is how I'm doing it too. Small deficit and slow loss and I don't expect to have to change much of anything when I get to goal.
0 -
TurnANewLeaf wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
I think that is what I said -- those with good insulin sensitivity lost more with more carbs. And those with insulin resistance lost more with less carbs. My exact words were:The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs.
andIf I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
Generally, the group with diabetes and prediabetes would fall into the insulin resistant group, but I'd have to go back and see what exactly was the A1C cut off.
What part isn't quite jiving for you?lindsey1979 wrote: »Let's see if we can all learn to change the dynamic to one that is more positive and respectful...I have hope for the MFP community.
What? What is wrong with asking Psulemon what part isn't quite jiving for him?
I'm trying to understand what exactly he had an issue with relative to what I said in the study because to me, there doesn't seem to be any disconnect or contradiction and yet there seems to be some to him.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Carbs. I like them and I like barely feeling like I'm on a diet.
I used to be a little annoyed when people would say "This isn't a diet, it's a lifestyle". I would think, "Oh really? You plan on maintaining a calorie deficit the rest of your life? IT'S A DIET." But my deficit is set so low now that it IS more like a "rest of my life" eating style than it is a diet. So I am practising those good habits, and I will have to change very little when I get to maintenance. To me it makes more sense than switching to low carb for a period of time and then having to figure out how to reincorporate carbs without regaining weight.
This is how I'm doing it too. Small deficit and slow loss and I don't expect to have to change much of anything when I get to goal.
Yes, basically this.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.
I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)
Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.
In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.
This x1000.
Yes, I agree with that.
(Which is why none of us can answer OP's question. And recommending that everyone lower carbs is bad advice.)
Nothing wrong with saying what works for each of us, though. I found out about low carb from the internet success stories and it saved me from backsliding my way up the scale to where I started. Doesn't mean it will do that for everyone, but it's out there for consideration, just like every other diet/way of eating. (Except the ones that can kill you, of course!)
0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.
Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?
Track exercise? The forums? The friends?
While it can be used to track macros, you can also remove all macros from the list of things being counted so it's no more a macro counting site than it is a micro counting site.
Okay, while I understand that there are other uses for the site, I guess I don't understand why someone would come into the forums and question why others would find it helpful to track macros and/or calories.
I don't understand that either. No more than I understand why someone would question why someone would be here if they don't want to track calories/macros.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.
I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)
Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.
In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.
This x1000.
Yes, I agree with that.
(Which is why none of us can answer OP's question. And recommending that everyone lower carbs is bad advice.)
Nothing wrong with saying what works for each of us, though. I found out about low carb from the internet success stories and it saved me from backsliding my way up the scale to where I started. Doesn't mean it will do that for everyone, but it's out there for consideration, just like every other diet/way of eating. (Except the ones that can kill you, of course!)
Yeah, I agree -- I just think OP needs to give more information to get a helpful response.
If someone is interested in trying low carb or thinks that way of eating sounds appealing or wants to experiment with it due to appetite issues, I always think it's worth a try. But I wouldn't tell someone that 40% carbs work for me, so they should do that -- people are different. Similarly, I dislike it when others say that a newbie must cut carbs or do low carb (not saying you were doing that here).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
This study (caveats aside) would actually suggest that I should INCREASE my carbs. I do about 40% (which is the "low carb" in the study, although less than 40% fat, true), and am insulin sensitive, so the study recommendation would put me in the 60%/20% camp.
I'm going to keep focusing on eating in a way that I consider satisfying and healthy, however, and not worry about raising my carbs. ;-)
Fair enough, but maybe more carbs would produce greater results for you. Just sayin'.
In the end, we're all going to have to figure out what works best for us -- results are only part of the equation. Compliance and ease of continued compliance are huge as well.
This x1000.
Yes, I agree with that.
(Which is why none of us can answer OP's question. And recommending that everyone lower carbs is bad advice.)
Nothing wrong with saying what works for each of us, though. I found out about low carb from the internet success stories and it saved me from backsliding my way up the scale to where I started. Doesn't mean it will do that for everyone, but it's out there for consideration, just like every other diet/way of eating. (Except the ones that can kill you, of course!)
Yeah, I agree -- I just think OP needs to give more information to get a helpful response.
If someone is interested in trying low carb or thinks that way of eating sounds appealing or wants to experiment with it due to appetite issues, I always think it's worth a try. But I wouldn't tell someone that 40% carbs work for me, so they should do that -- people are different. Similarly, I dislike it when others say that a newbie must cut carbs or do low carb (not saying you were doing that here).
True. For everyone who can afford it, a dietician who isn't a member of either the heart healthy whole grain cult or the paleo/keto cult would be ideal, if possibly hard to find. In other words, an open-minded professional who can do a professional assessment.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »Why obsess about carbs, protein and fat when all you have to do is eat a wide variety of whole/unprocessed foods. I've been there and it was a colossal waste of time with no lasting results. Just eat real food and be active. The end.
Why would you be on a calorie/macro tracking website if you weren't going to track your macros/calories?
Track exercise? The forums? The friends?
While it can be used to track macros, you can also remove all macros from the list of things being counted so it's no more a macro counting site than it is a micro counting site.
Okay, while I understand that there are other uses for the site, I guess I don't understand why someone would come into the forums and question why others would find it helpful to track macros and/or calories.
I don't understand that either. No more than I understand why someone would question why someone would be here if they don't want to track calories/macros.
I only asked him because he seemed to think that tracking macros was a bother and that he had a superior way.
I have friends on my list who don't log. But they also don't try to discourage me from logging and suggest that I should follow some clean-eating woo, either.0 -
healthyrachel1979 wrote: »Thoughts?
That is the question?
Me--I carb big time. I've eaten lower carb diets before I I run out of energy pretty quickly. I need carbs for energy for running, ohter cardio, and just moving throughout my life. My diet is about 40 percent carbs.0 -
This specific issue? You mean because 50% of the population may have diabetes or pre-diabetes? The recent number saying that comes from recent changes to defining pre-diabetes which involve letting A1C and glucose level signify pre-diabetes. It unfortunately might be over diagnosing because they isn't necessarily enough evidence to say the measure they're using are predictive of being at risk for diabetes. The only early detection that has solid backing is, if I recall from a speaker on the subject, a glucose challenge, but those are procedures that take a fair amount of time, so they're using unproven methods.jennifer_417 wrote: »Unless you have specific health conditions, low carb is totally unnecessary for losing weight.
I hope you're realizing that we're approaching a time when up to 50% of a population may have these specific health issues, sometimes as early as the age of three.0 -
healthyrachel1979 wrote: »Thoughts?
That is the question?
Me--I carb big time. I've eaten lower carb diets before I I run out of energy pretty quickly. I need carbs for energy for running, ohter cardio, and just moving throughout my life. My diet is about 40 percent carbs.
That's so interesting SLLRunner to see where different people fall on the high/low carb idea. Because in that study, 40% carbs would have put you in the low carb group and 60% carbs would put you in the high carb group. Of course, others consider low carb to be much lower like keto. Such a spectrum.
0 -
I can lose weight perfectly fine on any macro ratio but I respond particularly well to eating low carb so that's what I do.
I think I'm probably insulin resistant (undiagnosed) which might account for my experience but I don't know that I am -- or care. I described the change in how I feel eating low carb (compared to a "healthy" moderate carb diet) as miraculous when I first started eating LCHF and nearly four years later I still feel that way.0 -
Miss_Mania wrote: »I have a low to moderate carb approach. However I don't think it's essential for a weight loss plan. I say do whatever works for you and whatever you can stick with. None of us will have the answers for you.
Pretty much this. It's not that I think it helps or hurts weight loss any for most people. I just tend to eat far too much when it comes to the biggest culprits (pasta, baked goods, etc.)
I still eat bread from time to time.
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
I think that is what I said -- those with good insulin sensitivity lost more with more carbs. And those with insulin resistance lost more with less carbs. My exact words were:The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs.
andIf I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
Generally, the group with diabetes and prediabetes would fall into the insulin resistant group, but I'd have to go back and see what exactly was the A1C cut off.
What part isn't quite jiving for you?
My apologies. . I misread what you wrote. I read it as both group responded better to low carb
0 -
lindsey1979 wrote: »TurnANewLeaf wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »There is some research out there showing that the amount of carbs you consume may drastically change your results -- that they are not absolutely *needed* but that you could yield better results from different carb amounts.
For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.
If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
I am not sure if you went through the whole study because what you are saying and what the study is saying are slightly different, but this is what I found most interesting.ObesityResearch Journal wrote:Among the IR individuals, those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 13.4 ± 1.3% (11.1 ± 1.1 kg) of their initial BW as compared with 8.5 ± 1.4% (7.4 ± 1.0 kg) lost in those randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet (p = 0.02 for diet effect within the IR group). In contrast, IS individuals randomized to the HC/LF hypocaloric diet lost 13.5 ± 1.2% (11.3 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial BW, whereas those randomized to the LC/HF hypocaloric diet lost 6.8 ± 1.2% (6.2 ± 1.0 kg) of their initial weight (p < 0.001 for diet effect within the IS group).
Those with IR, did respond better to LCHF (as expected and demonstrated by most of those with PCOS/IR on this board) but those with IS did much better on HCLF.
Also, keep in mind that they acknowledge some limitations to the study.. 1. small sample size, 2. while they provided the food, it was not in a metabolic ward and people could have either increase TEA or over reported the food they ate.
I guess which group does those with diabetes and pre-diabetes fall into. Even looking at our forum, and this thread, you can see the differences in method with those who have those.
I think that is what I said -- those with good insulin sensitivity lost more with more carbs. And those with insulin resistance lost more with less carbs. My exact words were:The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs.
andIf I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that! So even if you don't *need* to adjust your carbs, it may make sense to do so to get better results -- either up or down, depending on your individual circumstances.
Generally, the group with diabetes and prediabetes would fall into the insulin resistant group, but I'd have to go back and see what exactly was the A1C cut off.
What part isn't quite jiving for you?lindsey1979 wrote: »Let's see if we can all learn to change the dynamic to one that is more positive and respectful...I have hope for the MFP community.
What? What is wrong with asking Psulemon what part isn't quite jiving for him?
I'm trying to understand what exactly he had an issue with relative to what I said in the study because to me, there doesn't seem to be any disconnect or contradiction and yet there seems to be some to him.
Nothing...especially considering that you had it exactly right. What you wrote is basically equivalent to the excerpt he posted. I think perhaps he just misinterpreted something you wrote.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions