Discover what's new & improved in the MyFitnessPal app!
We’re dedicated to helping you achieve your health and nutrition goals. And our newest features and updates? They do just that. Learn how we're making tracking your progress easier, faster, and more motivating than ever.

to carb or not too carb?

Options
123457

Replies

  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    Low carb - I don't like having to log food!

    Why would someone not doing low carb need to log food any more than someone that was??

    They wouldn't - who said otherwise?

  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    lodro 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.
    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.

    Don't you think "unproven" is going a little too far? It is what the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), ADA (American Diabetes Association), Mayo Clinic and AMA (American Medical Association) use to diagnose prediabetes.

    Sure, those standards are always shifting and maybe they'll have to adjust later, but those are pretty big orgs.

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,413 MFP Moderator
    Options
    senecarr wrote: »
    lodro 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.
    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.

    Don't you think "unproven" is going a little too far? It is what the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), ADA (American Diabetes Association), Mayo Clinic and AMA (American Medical Association) use to diagnose prediabetes.

    Sure, those standards are always shifting and maybe they'll have to adjust later, but those are pretty big orgs.


    One thing to take into consideration, iirc what yarwell said, the US standards for prediabetes is significantly lower than that of the UK and other country so each country isnt doing apples to apples comparisons.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,413 MFP Moderator
    Options
    MoiAussi93 wrote: »
    psulemon 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.

    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).

    oby_703_f1.gif?v=1&t=ieucv21b&s=4098463eab4fa089ace867bad46f02f2acd9c5b3


    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.

    and
    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.

    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?




    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.


    Yep.. i read it wrong... and apologized two post up. I have no problem admitting when i make a mistake.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    Low carb - I don't like having to log food!

    Why would someone not doing low carb need to log food any more than someone that was??

    They wouldn't - who said otherwise?

    Your original statement:
    Low carb - I don't like having to log food!

    Seems to imply that if a person is doing low carb then they don't need to log. I am sure you are saying this because you have been LC for a while, you have a handle on how much you need to eat in order to reach your goals, etc, etc - but to someone just expressing an interest in going LC I think it is misleading to indicate that you don't have to log, that there is no need to keep track of those calories. It is very possible to be LC and not be in a deficit - logging helps ensure that someone who is trying out LC, is still in an appropriate deficit to be able to lose weight.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    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?

    Calorie tracking is only one facet of this site. They do not exclude people that do not need to calories.

  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    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 would hope you understand - you are one of us.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Low carb - I don't like having to log food!

    Why would someone not doing low carb need to log food any more than someone that was??

    They wouldn't - who said otherwise?

    Your original statement:
    Low carb - I don't like having to log food!

    Seems to imply that if a person is doing low carb then they don't need to log. I am sure you are saying this because you have been LC for a while, you have a handle on how much you need to eat in order to reach your goals, etc, etc - but to someone just expressing an interest in going LC I think it is misleading to indicate that you don't have to log, that there is no need to keep track of those calories. It is very possible to be LC and not be in a deficit - logging helps ensure that someone who is trying out LC, is still in an appropriate deficit to be able to lose weight.

    You like to read a lot extra into a statement, don't you?

    Like everyone else on this forum I can only speak for myself.

    Low carb is lot easier to control my appetite on than eating a higher carb diet.

    I think that is the problem with a lot of people on these threads, they like to creatively fill in the gaps.
  • sweetteadrinker2
    sweetteadrinker2 Posts: 1,026 Member
    Options
    I do a keto carb level. But it's doctor prescribed, and not for everyone. Luckily it works lifestyle/mentally as well as health wise for me.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.

    People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.

    I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?

    You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.
  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Options
    psulemon wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    lodro 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.
    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.

    Don't you think "unproven" is going a little too far? It is what the CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention), ADA (American Diabetes Association), Mayo Clinic and AMA (American Medical Association) use to diagnose prediabetes.

    Sure, those standards are always shifting and maybe they'll have to adjust later, but those are pretty big orgs.


    One thing to take into consideration, iirc what yarwell said, the US standards for prediabetes is significantly lower than that of the UK and other country so each country isnt doing apples to apples comparisons.

    True, true, but my guess for that reason is because the US has a much bigger problem with diabetes than many other countries. I'm not sure how much the US and UK generally tend to align on medical issues. I know there is some difference for thyroid stuff too -- much harder to get natural dessicated thyroid in the UK (or so my UK friends tell me).

  • lindsey1979
    lindsey1979 Posts: 2,395 Member
    Options
    I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.

    People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.

    I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?

    You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.

    I do agree that there is a lot of difference between what many people mean with low carb -- it can vary greatly. Also in how people look to restrict carbs -- total carbs, type of carbs (fast acting versus slow acting), with meals (certain macros), etc. Lots of different ways to do it.

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,413 MFP Moderator
    Options
    I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.

    People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.

    I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?

    You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.

    Funny enough, there are several studies I have seen that align these macros to low carb as well. Personally, I don't look at macros for low carb as much as I do grams. For me, I always assumed around 120g or lower was low carb.
  • cebreisch
    cebreisch Posts: 1,340 Member
    Options
    I'm not a fan of eliminating specific food groups. But I can understand that certain people may be inclined to do so for various reasons. I'ver never been fond of it though - could be because I was never good at it either! LOL

    One of my nutritionists told me to focus on protein and the fats/carbs will take care of themselves, and I've found that to be pretty true. It's been really helpful as well.

    I do agree with earlnabby thought - whatever works for you. If you can make that work for you and you're rocking it, then keep on rocking it!!!
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Low carb - I don't like having to log food!

    Why would someone not doing low carb need to log food any more than someone that was??

    They wouldn't - who said otherwise?

    Your original statement:
    Low carb - I don't like having to log food!

    Seems to imply that if a person is doing low carb then they don't need to log. I am sure you are saying this because you have been LC for a while, you have a handle on how much you need to eat in order to reach your goals, etc, etc - but to someone just expressing an interest in going LC I think it is misleading to indicate that you don't have to log, that there is no need to keep track of those calories. It is very possible to be LC and not be in a deficit - logging helps ensure that someone who is trying out LC, is still in an appropriate deficit to be able to lose weight.

    You like to read a lot extra into a statement, don't you?

    Like everyone else on this forum I can only speak for myself.

    Low carb is lot easier to control my appetite on than eating a higher carb diet.

    I think that is the problem with a lot of people on these threads, they like to creatively fill in the gaps.

    What I always find interesting on these boards is that people tend to keep these kinds of qualifying statements in their back pocket. OP's are new to MFP, or want to try something new to get better results, or read something they want more information about. A blanket statement like, "Low Carb so I don't have to log" is potentially going to be something appealing to someone just starting out, but can lead to frustration if that person doesn't get the results they are looking for because they aren't in a calorie deficit. Why wouldn't you just add a simple disclaimer, "I like LC because I've been doing it long enough that I don't have to log my foods, I know how much to eat for satiety as well as achieving a calorie deficit, but it took some trial and error to get there". I think that is helpful. I even think that sounds appealing if someone doesn't like to log. But the way you phrased it gives you the opportunity to imply that LC this magical solution where logging is not required for success, and then when someone pushes back, you can say, 'gosh you are reading a lot into that, I was only speaking for myself'.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    psulemon wrote: »
    I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.

    People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.

    I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?

    You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.

    Funny enough, there are several studies I have seen that align these macros to low carb as well. Personally, I don't look at macros for low carb as much as I do grams. For me, I always assumed around 120g or lower was low carb.

    Hmmm... I can see doing it that way to a point, except ... for a sedentary petite woman on 1200 calories, that represents a pretty decent chunk of her diet.

    For a 6'1" powerlifter? It's hardly a drop in the bucket.

    Now I now this way of looking at it brings it back to percentages, though! ;)

    It's definitely a relative term sometimes.

  • Navybelle
    Navybelle Posts: 12 Member
    Options
    I think you just really have to listen to your body. Why don't you try no carbs for a day, then see how your body reacts to different types. I was, (am) a rice-a-holic. haha i guess being filipino has something to do with that. Then I tried oatmeal. It works for me and doesn't give me carb burn out, but still gives me the proper amount of energy for my gym session the following morning. I always eat according to the way I'm going to train the next day. And i guess the general idea is, what works for me, may not work for you. Trial and error. What matters is that you're actively taking steps to manage your caloric intake, and tailoring your macros to your lifestyle.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,413 MFP Moderator
    Options
    Navybelle wrote: »
    I think you just really have to listen to your body. Why don't you try no carbs for a day, then see how your body reacts to different types. I was, (am) a rice-a-holic. haha i guess being filipino has something to do with that. Then I tried oatmeal. It works for me and doesn't give me carb burn out, but still gives me the proper amount of energy for my gym session the following morning. I always eat according to the way I'm going to train the next day. And i guess the general idea is, what works for me, may not work for you. Trial and error. What matters is that you're actively taking steps to manage your caloric intake, and tailoring your macros to your lifestyle.

    I would caution doing something for one day. You won't really see much effects. Like most things weight loss, you should try it for a month, especially if you are going keto, as it will give you time to switch energy systems.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2015
    Options
    I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.

    People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.

    I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?

    And SAD isn't especially high carb either -- more like 50%. The problem with SAD is carb choices (and fat choices), according to nutritionist types, not carb percentage (and overall calories, of course).

    I think I was eating about 45-50% carbs when I was gaining weight, and that's where I tend to end up when active and not doing a deficit too. When I'm losing I tend to cut carbs more than other things (although I cut fat too), so I end up more like 40% (although it really depends on how low a deficit I want). It would be difficult to do a higher carb diet while cutting -- even though maybe I'd lose faster -- since I tend to enjoy my diet more with plenty of protein and fat (well, what seems like plenty to me -- I'd be miserable trying to do 80% fat).

    I have been thinking about experimenting with Matt Fitzgerald's carb recs for endurance sports, so maybe I will try to see if higher carb helps my running, although when I tried to up carbs earlier in the year I found it difficult to do so.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    psulemon wrote: »
    I'm jumping into this at the end, but what I find most interesting about that high carb/low carb IR/IS study? The carb percentage for low carb used for IR individuals is nothing near what is touted by folks around these parts who play the IR card.

    People who arrive at carb % by paying attention to protein and fat macro requirements who are dieting frequently end up eating around 40% or lower anyway.

    I find it silly that the idea of what's considered low carb is "compared to SAD". Is it becoming a nebulous term now?

    You could theoretically eat a lot of carby things like potatoes and cookies and ice cream on that carb percentage that I would not consider low carb foods. I'm not a slave to my macros, but have arrived at a 35% carb level by default after calculating fat and protein. I still fit those things in.

    Funny enough, there are several studies I have seen that align these macros to low carb as well. Personally, I don't look at macros for low carb as much as I do grams. For me, I always assumed around 120g or lower was low carb.

    I think of under 100 as lower carb.