The barb is in the Carb
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.0 -
CICO=Calories in Calories out
It means that as long as you are eating less calories than your body needs every day you will lose weight. You could eat only twinkies or only steaks and as long as you are under your daily energy expenditure you'll lose weight.
This is not exactly true, otherwise weightloss would be easy. What works for one person isn't necessarily going to work for the next. I think we can all agree on that. What's more important is what you eat, and if low carbs high fat works, and it's proven time and again to work, then stick with it1 -
AnnieHowes wrote: »CICO=Calories in Calories out
It means that as long as you are eating less calories than your body needs every day you will lose weight. You could eat only twinkies or only steaks and as long as you are under your daily energy expenditure you'll lose weight.
This is not exactly true, otherwise weightloss would be easy. What works for one person isn't necessarily going to work for the next. I think we can all agree on that. What's more important is what you eat, and if low carbs high fat works, and it's proven time and again to work, then stick with it
It is true, but it isn't easy. Eating below calorie burn proves to be a challenge for many people. Finding what works, such as low carb high fat, or vegetarianism, can often be a key part of making it work.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero.
There are no essential saturated fats either, but I have yet to see any lowcarbers advocate avoiding those0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed0 -
AnnieHowes wrote: »CICO=Calories in Calories out
It means that as long as you are eating less calories than your body needs every day you will lose weight. You could eat only twinkies or only steaks and as long as you are under your daily energy expenditure you'll lose weight.
This is not exactly true, otherwise weightloss would be easy. What works for one person isn't necessarily going to work for the next. I think we can all agree on that. What's more important is what you eat, and if low carbs high fat works, and it's proven time and again to work, then stick with it
Eating less calories than you burn is universal for every human being. How you achieve that best is up to you, but you need to do it in order to lose weight in the form of fat.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.0 -
AnnieHowes wrote: »CICO=Calories in Calories out
It means that as long as you are eating less calories than your body needs every day you will lose weight. You could eat only twinkies or only steaks and as long as you are under your daily energy expenditure you'll lose weight.
This is not exactly true, otherwise weightloss would be easy. What works for one person isn't necessarily going to work for the next. I think we can all agree on that. What's more important is what you eat, and if low carbs high fat works, and it's proven time and again to work, then stick with it
It is true that CI<CO is required for weight loss and it is also true that you can eat all twinkies and lose weight of you are in a calorie deficit. The numbers are all that matter for weight loss, however different ways of eating to get to those numbers may be more or less sustainable for an individual.0 -
I guess we all have to figure out what works for our own bodies...
...and then insist that everyone else should do it exactly the same because it is the only approach that is based on science and that any other approach is inferior.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.
By sciency I suppose you mean an opinion piece by a researcher with a known low carb bias.
The only "reference" in the fluff piece you posted was an editorial.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.
By sciency I suppose you mean an opinion piece by a researcher with a known low carb bias.
The only "reference" in the fluff piece you posted was an editorial.
I didn't click through to the link.
Was it Lustig or Taubes?0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.
By sciency I suppose you mean an opinion piece by a researcher with a known low carb bias.
The only "reference" in the fluff piece you posted was an editorial.
I didn't click through to the link.
Was it Lustig or Taubes?
C. Ludwig
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.
By sciency I suppose you mean an opinion piece by a researcher with a known low carb bias.
The only "reference" in the fluff piece you posted was an editorial.
I didn't click through to the link.
Was it Lustig or Taubes?
Don't hurt yourself rushing to discount the authors, you might miss the interesting and relevant content.
Even the mainstream authorities are rewinding on the whole "evil fat, carbs are nutritionally glorious" detour we've followed for the last 40 years on our quest for nutritional understanding.
Cheers!
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.
By sciency I suppose you mean an opinion piece by a researcher with a known low carb bias.
The only "reference" in the fluff piece you posted was an editorial.
I didn't click through to the link.
Was it Lustig or Taubes?
Don't hurt yourself rushing to discount the authors, you might miss the interesting and relevant content.
Even the mainstream authorities are rewinding on the whole "evil fat, carbs are nutritionally glorious" detour we've followed for the last 40 years on our quest for nutritional understanding.
Cheers!
That wouldn't surprise me one bit
I'm looking forward to seeing what changes in the nutritional field are going to come up in the next 10 years or so.... Scientifically of course
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.
By sciency I suppose you mean an opinion piece by a researcher with a known low carb bias.
The only "reference" in the fluff piece you posted was an editorial.
I didn't click through to the link.
Was it Lustig or Taubes?
Don't hurt yourself rushing to discount the authors, you might miss the interesting and relevant content.
Even the mainstream authorities are rewinding on the whole "evil fat, carbs are nutritionally glorious" detour we've followed for the last 40 years on our quest for nutritional understanding.
Cheers!
Going from "fat is evil never have it" to "eat all the fat, drink bacon grease and put coconut oil in your coffee" isn't any better.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.
By sciency I suppose you mean an opinion piece by a researcher with a known low carb bias.
The only "reference" in the fluff piece you posted was an editorial.
I didn't click through to the link.
Was it Lustig or Taubes?
Don't hurt yourself rushing to discount the authors, you might miss the interesting and relevant content.
Even the mainstream authorities are rewinding on the whole "evil fat, carbs are nutritionally glorious" detour we've followed for the last 40 years on our quest for nutritional understanding.
Cheers!
Going from "fat is evil never have it" to "eat all the fat, drink bacon grease and put coconut oil in your coffee" isn't any better.
Extremist & not really practiced by many, ya think? Drinking bacon grease? It is solid at room temp and painful when hot enough to drink. 1 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.
By sciency I suppose you mean an opinion piece by a researcher with a known low carb bias.
The only "reference" in the fluff piece you posted was an editorial.
I didn't click through to the link.
Was it Lustig or Taubes?
Don't hurt yourself rushing to discount the authors, you might miss the interesting and relevant content.
Even the mainstream authorities are rewinding on the whole "evil fat, carbs are nutritionally glorious" detour we've followed for the last 40 years on our quest for nutritional understanding.
Cheers!
You might find my food diary for all of 2012 interesting.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Ah, then Yarwell was the one that was off, not his link. On page 6 I just saw percentage ranges for acceptable intake, for an adult that's 20-35% from fat, 10-35% from protein and 45-65% from carbs, making a 1g/lb of lbm protein intake well within the recommendation for just about anyone.
I think so, yes. Basically, I find useless to argue on the label (low/moderate/high) as "absolute", while for protein intake we should wonder whether a certain amount is adequate or not, considering the activity levels/fitness goals etc.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »I guess we all have to figure out what works for our own bodies...
...and then insist that everyone else should do it exactly the same because it is the only approach that is based on science and that any other approach is inferior.
Succinct. Love this. Thxs!0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
That same science puts upper limits on both protein and fat.
Not fat. anymore.
Citation needed
This is the easy read, contains links to more credible opinions.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2015/06/24/fat-is-back-experts-say-its-time-to-stop-limiting-our-total-fat-intake/
Yep. When I want credible science, I go to a mainstream business magazine.
Not me, I usually follow the links back to the sciency source.
By sciency I suppose you mean an opinion piece by a researcher with a known low carb bias.
The only "reference" in the fluff piece you posted was an editorial.
I didn't click through to the link.
Was it Lustig or Taubes?
Don't hurt yourself rushing to discount the authors, you might miss the interesting and relevant content.
Even the mainstream authorities are rewinding on the whole "evil fat, carbs are nutritionally glorious" detour we've followed for the last 40 years on our quest for nutritional understanding.
Cheers!
as far as I know, the "mainstream authorities" have largely advocated a balanced, nutritious diet. I know...crazy0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »My understanding too is that it's not true, as is commonly stated on this forum, that you only burn fat if doing some kind of low carb thing. You burn what you eat, and that includes fat as well as glycogen (although during hard cardio glycogen will be strongly preferred). And of course this is also why fat burning vs. "carb" burning exercise is irrelevant -- the overall deficit is what matters and the body takes the fuel it needs from what is available.
You certainly burn more fat as a proportion on low carb, you have to as there aren't any carbs to burn. If all of that fat comes from food then you won't lose body fat obviously. Kevin Halls' 6 day thing did at least illustrate this point despite not reaching a stable state :-
As for burning what we eat, there are some people that appear to be good at storing fat in the presence of carbohydrate and less good at withdrawing it from stores. "This observation suggests that low postprandial fat oxidation may uniquely predispose obesity-prone individuals to accrual of adipose tissue." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2010.96/abstract
Other studies find elevated RQ indicative of preferential carb oxidation and tie that into obesity issues like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10953639
Exercising at high exertion will drain my glycogen reserves but doesn't immediately use fat for fuel. How the glycogen is topped up again depends what I eat.
Ironic that you post this. I was just looking at this recent hall study, "Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity". Unfortunately, i haven't been able to find a free copy online and I was only able to obtain a PDF. But I will provide some highlights from the study below.
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(15)00350-2
"We performed an in-patient metabolic balance study examining the effect of selective isocaloric reduction of dietary carbohydrate versus fat on body weight, energy expenditure, and fat balance in obese volunteers. A mechanistic mathematical model of human macronutrient metabolism (Hall, 2010) was used to design the study and predict the metabolic response to each diet before the study was conducted (Hall, 2012). Here, we report the results of this experiment and use the mathematical model to quantitatively integrate the data and make in silico predictions about the results of long-term diet studies that are not practical to perform in the real world. In agreement with our model simulations, we found that only the reduced carbohydrate diet led to significant changes in metabolic fuel selection, with sustained reductions of carbohydrate oxidation and increased fat oxidation. Remarkably, fat oxidation on the reduced-fat diet re-
mained unchanged and resulted in a greater rate of body fat loss compared to the reduced carbohydrate diet, despite being equivalent in calories."
"... This study demonstrated that, calorie for calorie, restriction of dietary fat led to greater body fat loss than restriction of dietary carbohydrate in adults with obesity. This occurred despite the fact that only the carbohydrate-restricted diet led to decreased insulin secretion and a substantial sustained increase in net fat oxidation compared to the baseline energy-balanced diet."
"...Dietary fat contributed only about 8% to the total energy content of the RF diet, making it a very low-fat diet. The RF diet did not reduce refined carbohydrates from baseline and resulted in no significant changes in 24-hr insulin secretion. In contrast, carbohydrates were about 29% of the energy content of the RC diet with a mean absolute carbohydrate intake of about 140 g/day, which induced a substantial drop in 24-hr insulin secretion. Thus, while the RC diet qualifies as a low-carbohydrate diet, it was clearly not a very low-carbohydrate diet, which typically requires carbohydrates to be less than 50 g/day (Westman et al., 2007). Given the composition of the baseline diet, it was not possible to design an isocaloric very low-carbohydrate diet without also adding fat or protein. We decided against such an approach due to the difficulty in attributing any observed effects of the diet to the reduction in carbohydrate as opposed to the addition of fat or protein."
"Translation of our results to real-world weight-loss diets for treatment of obesity is limited since the experimental design and model simulations relied on strict control of food intake, which is unrealistic in free-living individuals. While our results suggest that the experimental reduced-fat diet was more effective at inducing body fat loss than the reduced-carbohydrate diet, diet adherence was strictly enforced. We did not address whether it would be easier to adhere to a reduced-fat or a reduced-carbohydrate diet under free-living conditions. Since diet adherence is likely the most important determinant of body fat loss, we suspect that previously observed differences in weight loss and body fat change during outpatient diet interventions (Foster et al., 2010; Gardner et al., 2007; Shai et al., 2008) were primarily due to differences in overall calorie intake rather than any metabolic advantage of a low-carbohydrate diet."
I have highlighted a few areas for discussion in bold above but wanted to reinforce some of this points. First, this study was VLF (~8% of EE) and not VLC (~140g) and second, dietary compliance was strictly enforced (since it was a metabolic study), which resulted in a greater fat loss from a low fat diet. But ultimately, dietary compliance is going to play a much bigger factor. Additionally, and most importantly, while all the studies in the world can suggest one way of eating is more important than the other, the fact is, no one eats to the exact standard and/or parameters that are presented in the studies, which would alter the results.
TLDR: find a WOE that you enjoy.. but suggesting one is better than the other is a bit short sided because if you can't sustain a specific diet, then you will likely fail.
0 -
Psulemon thanks for sharing. That is a lot of protein! 8% fat + 29% carbs infers 63% protein. Constipation?? Interesting read and agree the best diet is one where a person can enjoy life and lose weight.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
That same site recommends a flat 100g of carbs for everyone, from 1 year old infants, to grownass men and has no recommendations on fat except for infants.
In fact, if I use those two recommendations and assume that means the rest is supposed to be fat, I'd be at 100 g carbs, 43 g protein, and 203 grams fat. A diet consisting of 76% fat. Yummy.
It is yummy, healthy AND I'm losing a pound a week!
It's about twice the recommended amount. But I guess going over the recommended amount is only bad if it's not the thing you eat excess of yourself.
I chose to eat based on science rather than RDA's which are hotly debated & discounted by science.
It is nice that RDA's work for you, the carbohydrate RDA was making me unhealthy and I am reversing that now with a high fat diet.
Which science says you should eat 3/4 of your calories in pure fat?
The science that has generally agreed that carbohydrates are not an essential nutrient and have established a lower limit of zero. I still eat some carbs, just not at the RDA levels that increased all my risk markers for metabolic disorders.
The math is ..
My total calories - 140ish calories of carbs = remaining calories allocated to proteins and fats.
So, by this logic, do you eat no saturated fat or attempt to eliminate it in your diet? There is no established necessity for saturated fat intake. Even a dietary minimum for fat only establishes a small amount.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/3/550.full?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1097233292054_2953&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=80&firstpage=550&resourcetype=1&journalcode=ajcn0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Here's my thought with low carb.....I have a good amount of stored carbs and fat on my body. 262 pounds of which maybe 60-70 pounds are fat and stored carbs. Why is my body storing it? because I eat more than I need to use for energy and living. So it's a reserve, well stop filling the reserve and start using it for energy and to live.....burn it. How you ask STOP eating carbs and force your body to burn the stored supply. Once the save supply is used a accurate calculation must be re established to figure out what you burn a day what you consume a day and formulate a balanced regimen that promotes maintenance. It's a long road that requires discipline mathematics and commitment. I am at the beginning of this journey and will post my progress. Aloha
That's not how it works. If you are in a surplus and eat no carbs you'll still store fat. If you are in a deficit and eat only carbs you'll burn fat. Weight loss is simply about calorie balance. The right balance of carbs, fat and protein can help with body composition as you lose and can help keep you in a deficit, but cutting carbs out is not the secret to losing weight.
Interesting how the CICO folks always leave out one factor: hunger. Try dealing with that on your calorie restricted, high carb, low fat diet. Good luck.
Let me guess. You believe most "CICO folks" just eat a lot of junk food, right?
No, but I believe that a large segment among them are setting themselves up for failure 6 months down the line.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Here's my thought with low carb.....I have a good amount of stored carbs and fat on my body. 262 pounds of which maybe 60-70 pounds are fat and stored carbs. Why is my body storing it? because I eat more than I need to use for energy and living. So it's a reserve, well stop filling the reserve and start using it for energy and to live.....burn it. How you ask STOP eating carbs and force your body to burn the stored supply. Once the save supply is used a accurate calculation must be re established to figure out what you burn a day what you consume a day and formulate a balanced regimen that promotes maintenance. It's a long road that requires discipline mathematics and commitment. I am at the beginning of this journey and will post my progress. Aloha
That's not how it works. If you are in a surplus and eat no carbs you'll still store fat. If you are in a deficit and eat only carbs you'll burn fat. Weight loss is simply about calorie balance. The right balance of carbs, fat and protein can help with body composition as you lose and can help keep you in a deficit, but cutting carbs out is not the secret to losing weight.
Interesting how the CICO folks always leave out one factor: hunger. Try dealing with that on your calorie restricted, high carb, low fat diet. Good luck.
Let me guess. You believe most "CICO folks" just eat a lot of junk food, right?
No, but I believe that a large segment among them are setting themselves up for failure 6 months down the line.
You believe wrong then.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Here's my thought with low carb.....I have a good amount of stored carbs and fat on my body. 262 pounds of which maybe 60-70 pounds are fat and stored carbs. Why is my body storing it? because I eat more than I need to use for energy and living. So it's a reserve, well stop filling the reserve and start using it for energy and to live.....burn it. How you ask STOP eating carbs and force your body to burn the stored supply. Once the save supply is used a accurate calculation must be re established to figure out what you burn a day what you consume a day and formulate a balanced regimen that promotes maintenance. It's a long road that requires discipline mathematics and commitment. I am at the beginning of this journey and will post my progress. Aloha
That's not how it works. If you are in a surplus and eat no carbs you'll still store fat. If you are in a deficit and eat only carbs you'll burn fat. Weight loss is simply about calorie balance. The right balance of carbs, fat and protein can help with body composition as you lose and can help keep you in a deficit, but cutting carbs out is not the secret to losing weight.
Interesting how the CICO folks always leave out one factor: hunger. Try dealing with that on your calorie restricted, high carb, low fat diet. Good luck.
Let me guess. You believe most "CICO folks" just eat a lot of junk food, right?
No, but I believe that a large segment among them are setting themselves up for failure 6 months down the line.
Why? CICO is not a way of eating. It is an energy balance. If a person is losing weight eating low carb, they are following CICO, their CI<CO. If a person eats a balanced diet with primarily nutrient dense foods but doesn't restrict any food group or types of food, and they are losing weight practicing moderation, they are also following CICO with CI<CO.
So why would either of these people, if they chose a way of eating that leaves them feeling satiated, gives them an appropriate balance of nutrients, and achieving their weight loss goals, be setting themselves up for failure in 6 months?
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Here's my thought with low carb.....I have a good amount of stored carbs and fat on my body. 262 pounds of which maybe 60-70 pounds are fat and stored carbs. Why is my body storing it? because I eat more than I need to use for energy and living. So it's a reserve, well stop filling the reserve and start using it for energy and to live.....burn it. How you ask STOP eating carbs and force your body to burn the stored supply. Once the save supply is used a accurate calculation must be re established to figure out what you burn a day what you consume a day and formulate a balanced regimen that promotes maintenance. It's a long road that requires discipline mathematics and commitment. I am at the beginning of this journey and will post my progress. Aloha
That's not how it works. If you are in a surplus and eat no carbs you'll still store fat. If you are in a deficit and eat only carbs you'll burn fat. Weight loss is simply about calorie balance. The right balance of carbs, fat and protein can help with body composition as you lose and can help keep you in a deficit, but cutting carbs out is not the secret to losing weight.
Interesting how the CICO folks always leave out one factor: hunger. Try dealing with that on your calorie restricted, high carb, low fat diet. Good luck.
Let me guess. You believe most "CICO folks" just eat a lot of junk food, right?
No, but I believe that a large segment among them are setting themselves up for failure 6 months down the line.
CICO is a scientific fact that can't be argued. How you get there is your preference (iifym, low carb, whatever). It gets old to see CICO "debated". It's not debatable. If you tried to lose weight, you followed CICO. If you tried to gain, you follow CICO. It's NOT a preference on the way anyone eats.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions