The barb is in the Carb
Replies
-
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.
That is much more succinct than I was, thanks!1 -
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=ajcn
At this point none of the health issues I'm working to address have any ties (verified or speculative) whatsoever to saturated fat levels, so saturated fat levels have not been an area of concern. In my personal quest, I've never found a link between high sat fat levels causing or aggravating my issues.
I've always eaten plentiful saturated fat and nothing that "they" said about the bad effects ever materialized.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.
Maybe not as fast as 6 months, but eat a little bit wrong for decades and you will see bad results. CICO is always mentioned alone. It should always be paired with the words 'nutritionally balanced'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.
And what of the ones that have done this for 6 months? Is the 6 months a constantly expanding time, so that 6 months is always 6 months from now? How long does someone have to have been using calorie counting for them to not be set up for failure?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.
Maybe not as fast as 6 months, but eat a little bit wrong for decades and you will see bad results. CICO is always mentioned alone. It should always be paired with the words 'nutritionally balanced'
Funny, 90% of the time I see people mention it, they tend to say specifically "for weight loss, calories are all that matter" or some equivalent. From there, at least half mention, "this isn't the same as health though" or some equivalent.
And why do people that calorie count have a special obligation to mention losing weight can happen in unhealthy ways? Should low carbers be forced to mention possible nutrient deficiencies from low carb, issues with digestion from lack of fiber, every time they discuss low carbing?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=ajcn
At this point none of the health issues I'm working to address have any ties (verified or speculative) whatsoever to saturated fat levels, so saturated fat levels have not been an area of concern. In my personal quest, I've never found a link between high sat fat levels causing or aggravating my issues.
I've always eaten plentiful saturated fat and nothing that "they" said about the bad effects ever materialized.
A. Who are they? The illumanti? Because that is what I assume everyone says they in a sense that similar to typing they in quotations. It also makes it a lot more fun to read.
B. If you have IR or metabolic syndrome, I should think cholesterol and heart disease would be a concern. People can blame games with how well things correlate, but it is a fact that in the short term, saturated fats raise cholesterol.
C. Survivor and immediacy bias - that you don't have issues from saturated fat now doesn't preclude you getting it in the future.
D. A healthy, controlled eating of carbs isn't associated with causing or aggravating most diseases either - generally only rare metabolic disorders effecting a fraction of a fraction of the population. So applying your standards to saturated fat would also work for applying to carbs.0 -
Always? I think you meant "rarely."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.
Maybe not as fast as 6 months, but eat a little bit wrong for decades and you will see bad results. CICO is always mentioned alone. It should always be paired with the words 'nutritionally balanced'
If you haven't seen the near-constant refrain of "CICO is all that matters for weight loss, but weight loss isn't all that matters," then I wonder what posts you've been reading. And not reading.
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.
Maybe not as fast as 6 months, but eat a little bit wrong for decades and you will see bad results. CICO is always mentioned alone. It should always be paired with the words 'nutritionally balanced'
And again, CICO can be mentioned alone as it isn't a theory on dieting. It's a fact. The theories are what can be debated. Somehow I feel like CICO is being lumped into a moderate way of dieting which just simply isn't true.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »Carbs raise blood sugar generating an insulin response. If one is insulin resistant, the insulin stores what was glucose in fat cells, leaving cells still in need of fuel...thus hunger returns even though one in theory ate enough calories.
Just the opposite. In a healthy person, insulin will store excess carbs as fat and glycogen. In an insulin resistant person, the excess carbs linger in the blood longer. Insulin is a carbohydrate and protein storage protein.
The tendency for obese people to not feel satiated is probably leptin resistance, not insulin resistance. And yes, very sugary foods tend not to be very filling for most people, yet starchy foods often are.
In the studies that led to the creation of the "fullness factor", the things that increased satiety were lower calorie density, lower fat, higher protein, and higher fiber - other carbs don't even factor in except in total calories.
I fail to see that what you wrote = "just the opposite" of what I stated.
Have a link to these studies? I definitely am more satiated with fat rather than carbs. As are others.
Some are, some aren't. The studies suggest more aren't. It varies, which is why people should pay attention to what works for them and not assume it's what would work for others (or that others are hungry all the time).
0 -
LOVE ALL YOUR OPINIONS THANKS FOR THE GREAT IDEAS AND POST HAVE A GREAT WEEK AND LETS ALL STAY ON TRACK WHATEVER TRACK THAT TAKES YOU FORWARD. ALOHA0
-
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Maybe not as fast as 6 months, but eat a little bit wrong for decades and you will see bad results. CICO is always mentioned alone. It should always be paired with the words 'nutritionally balanced'
And again, CICO can be mentioned alone as it isn't a theory on dieting. It's a fact. The theories are what can be debated. Somehow I feel like CICO is being lumped into a moderate way of dieting which just simply isn't true.
That's a great graphic!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.
Maybe not as fast as 6 months, but eat a little bit wrong for decades and you will see bad results. CICO is always mentioned alone. It should always be paired with the words 'nutritionally balanced'
And again, CICO can be mentioned alone as it isn't a theory on dieting. It's a fact. The theories are what can be debated. Somehow I feel like CICO is being lumped into a moderate way of dieting which just simply isn't true.
That's a great graphic!
I don't know about that. Just a 2 minute PS pic I put together real quick.1 -
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=ajcn
At this point none of the health issues I'm working to address have any ties (verified or speculative) whatsoever to saturated fat levels, so saturated fat levels have not been an area of concern. In my personal quest, I've never found a link between high sat fat levels causing or aggravating my issues.
I've always eaten plentiful saturated fat and nothing that "they" said about the bad effects ever materialized.
Neither sugar nor sat fat has been a problem for me.
Despite that, I think it's sensible to pay attention to medical advice and the experts and limit both and eat an overall healthful diet. I think it's nuts to go on about sugar and eat a mostly sat fat diet like some do (and it seems incredibly unappealing to me, but whatever).0 -
SamandaIndia wrote: »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.
Below is the dietary composition of the two groups.
RC group -
Calories - 1918
Protein - 101g
Fats - 108g
Carb - 140g
Sugar - 37g
Fiber - 16g
RF group -
Calories - 1918
Protein - 105g
Fats - 17g
Carbs - 352g
Sugar - 170
Fiber - 21g
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=ajcn
At this point none of the health issues I'm working to address have any ties (verified or speculative) whatsoever to saturated fat levels, so saturated fat levels have not been an area of concern. In my personal quest, I've never found a link between high sat fat levels causing or aggravating my issues.
I've always eaten plentiful saturated fat and nothing that "they" said about the bad effects ever materialized.
A. Who are they? The illumanti? Because that is what I assume everyone says they in a sense that similar to typing they in quotations. It also makes it a lot more fun to read.
B. If you have IR or metabolic syndrome, I should think cholesterol and heart disease would be a concern. People can blame games with how well things correlate, but it is a fact that in the short term, saturated fats raise cholesterol.
C. Survivor and immediacy bias - that you don't have issues from saturated fat now doesn't preclude you getting it in the future.
D. A healthy, controlled eating of carbs isn't associated with causing or aggravating most diseases either - generally only rare metabolic disorders effecting a fraction of a fraction of the population. So applying your standards to saturated fat would also work for applying to carbs.
In regards to B.
Heart disease is a concern for me. And being very low carb/ high fat has improved my lipid profile.
Also, you need to look at the ratio between triglycerides and HDL cholesterol as a better predictor of health than the generic "cholesterol".
And try and find a correlation between ill health in older women or senior citizens of either sex and high cholesterol.
In regards to D.
Metabolic syndrome issues are growing and we don't see them sometimes until decades after they start in a person's body.
You are wrong to think it affects "a fraction of a fraction" of the population.0 -
Cholesterol levels are not thought to be a risk factor for women, except that women who have low cholesterol are at greater risk of CAD, especially as they age.
Plus, saturated fat generally does not raise cholesterol, or if it does it is generally the more beneficial fluffier LDL or HDL. Lp a and triglycerides usually go down in a diet higher in saturated fats, especially if it is lower carb.
0 -
Cholesterol levels are not thought to be a risk factor for women, except that women who have low cholesterol are at greater risk of CAD, especially as they age.
Plus, saturated fat generally does not raise cholesterol, or if it does it is generally the more beneficial fluffier LDL or HDL. Lp a and triglycerides usually go down in a diet higher in saturated fats, especially if it is lower carb.
Um.... what?
What does high cholesterol have to do with heart disease?
Cholesterol is a waxy substance found in cells in all parts of the body. When there is too much cholesterol in your blood, cholesterol can build up on the walls of your arteries and cause blood clots. Cholesterol can clog your arteries and keep your heart from getting the blood it needs. This can cause a heart attack.
There are two types of cholesterol:
Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is often called the "bad" type of cholesterol because it can clog the arteries that carry blood to your heart. For LDL, lower numbers are better.
High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is known as "good" cholesterol because it takes the bad cholesterol out of your blood and keeps it from building up in your arteries. For HDL, higher numbers are better.
All women age 20 and older should have their blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels checked at least once every 5 years
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/heart-disease.html#g0 -
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.
And what of the ones that have done this for 6 months? Is the 6 months a constantly expanding time, so that 6 months is always 6 months from now? How long does someone have to have been using calorie counting for them to not be set up for failure?
I hope this is answered in the posts not yet read. I've only been successfully achieving my weight goals (in both directions) for a little over four years. If it's going to start failing in six months, I'd like to know that so I can plan accordingly.
Meanwhile, I'll keep eating to the formula and achieving my weight goals. (My current plan is going from 185 to 205 over the next five months, so I guess I still have time before it stops working in six.)0 -
Great. No mention of when the six month clock starts. Now I'll never know.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Great. No mention of when the six month clock starts. Now I'll never know.
It's on the Doomsday Clock, obviously...0 -
Cholesterol levels are not thought to be a risk factor for women, except that women who have low cholesterol are at greater risk of CAD, especially as they age.
Plus, saturated fat generally does not raise cholesterol, or if it does it is generally the more beneficial fluffier LDL or HDL. Lp a and triglycerides usually go down in a diet higher in saturated fats, especially if it is lower carb.
Um.... what?
What does high cholesterol have to do with heart disease?
Cholesterol is a waxy substance found in cells in all parts of the body. When there is too much cholesterol in your blood, cholesterol can build up on the walls of your arteries and cause blood clots. Cholesterol can clog your arteries and keep your heart from getting the blood it needs. This can cause a heart attack.
There are two types of cholesterol:
Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is often called the "bad" type of cholesterol because it can clog the arteries that carry blood to your heart. For LDL, lower numbers are better.
High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is known as "good" cholesterol because it takes the bad cholesterol out of your blood and keeps it from building up in your arteries. For HDL, higher numbers are better.
All women age 20 and older should have their blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels checked at least once every 5 years
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/heart-disease.html#g
This is slowly becoming outdated. Woo if you will. There really is no evidence that on must have a bunch of LDL to have heart diaese as a woman. There is a link in men below age 50, but in women, there is nothing that is strong enough to be called evidence. There are lots of guidelines but (IMO) they are based on fluff.0 -
Um.... what?
What does high cholesterol have to do with heart disease?
Cholesterol is a waxy substance found in cells in all parts of the body. When there is too much cholesterol in your blood, cholesterol can build up on the walls of your arteries and cause blood clots. Cholesterol can clog your arteries and keep your heart from getting the blood it needs. This can cause a heart attack.
There are two types of cholesterol:
Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is often called the "bad" type of cholesterol because it can clog the arteries that carry blood to your heart. For LDL, lower numbers are better.
High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is known as "good" cholesterol because it takes the bad cholesterol out of your blood and keeps it from building up in your arteries. For HDL, higher numbers are better.
All women age 20 and older should have their blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels checked at least once every 5 years
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/heart-disease.html#g
That is a fact sheet. But without links to studies, it is not that helpful.
Forgive me if I don't trust all health reports without backup any longer.
1 -
Pollywog_la 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.
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=ajcn
At this point none of the health issues I'm working to address have any ties (verified or speculative) whatsoever to saturated fat levels, so saturated fat levels have not been an area of concern. In my personal quest, I've never found a link between high sat fat levels causing or aggravating my issues.
I've always eaten plentiful saturated fat and nothing that "they" said about the bad effects ever materialized.
A. Who are they? The illumanti? Because that is what I assume everyone says they in a sense that similar to typing they in quotations. It also makes it a lot more fun to read.
B. If you have IR or metabolic syndrome, I should think cholesterol and heart disease would be a concern. People can blame games with how well things correlate, but it is a fact that in the short term, saturated fats raise cholesterol.
C. Survivor and immediacy bias - that you don't have issues from saturated fat now doesn't preclude you getting it in the future.
D. A healthy, controlled eating of carbs isn't associated with causing or aggravating most diseases either - generally only rare metabolic disorders effecting a fraction of a fraction of the population. So applying your standards to saturated fat would also work for applying to carbs.
In regards to B.
Heart disease is a concern for me. And being very low carb/ high fat has improved my lipid profile.
Also, you need to look at the ratio between triglycerides and HDL cholesterol as a better predictor of health than the generic "cholesterol".
And try and find a correlation between ill health in older women or senior citizens of either sex and high cholesterol.
In regards to D.
Metabolic syndrome issues are growing and we don't see them sometimes until decades after they start in a person's body.
You are wrong to think it affects "a fraction of a fraction" of the population.
B. Total cholesterol matters as does risk ratio, with risk ratio being total cholesterol divided by HDL, no triglycerides divided by HDL. Triglycerides are another factor. Saturated fat raises total cholesterol.
D. Metabolic syndrome is not a disorders where a controlled carb approach will cause or aggravate it.0 -
This claim sounds like someone misinterpreting the HRT studies on menopausal women.Cholesterol levels are not thought to be a risk factor for women, except that women who have low cholesterol are at greater risk of CAD, especially as they age.
Plus, saturated fat generally does not raise cholesterol, or if it does it is generally the more beneficial fluffier LDL or HDL. Lp a and triglycerides usually go down in a diet higher in saturated fats, especially if it is lower carb.
What is true is that lowering cholesterol in post menopausal women doesn't appear to lead to better health outcomes for cardiovascular disease - the general interpretation being that intervention is too little, too late at that point. It did not change that lifetime cholesterol figures are predictors of cardiovascular events.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Great. No mention of when the six month clock starts. Now I'll never know.
Lodro will tell you in six months - not necessarily six months from now though.0 -
This claim sounds like someone misinterpreting the HRT studies on menopausal women.Cholesterol levels are not thought to be a risk factor for women, except that women who have low cholesterol are at greater risk of CAD, especially as they age.
Plus, saturated fat generally does not raise cholesterol, or if it does it is generally the more beneficial fluffier LDL or HDL. Lp a and triglycerides usually go down in a diet higher in saturated fats, especially if it is lower carb.
What is true is that lowering cholesterol in post menopausal women doesn't appear to lead to better health outcomes for cardiovascular disease - the general interpretation being that intervention is too little, too late at that point. It did not change that lifetime cholesterol figures are predictors of cardiovascular events.
Right - not everyone reading along is a postmenopausal women. Other people need to be mindful of cholesterol. Just saying what applies to you as if it applies to everyone can be dangerous.0 -
Cholesterol levels are not thought to be a risk factor for women, except that women who have low cholesterol are at greater risk of CAD, especially as they age.
Plus, saturated fat generally does not raise cholesterol, or if it does it is generally the more beneficial fluffier LDL or HDL. Lp a and triglycerides usually go down in a diet higher in saturated fats, especially if it is lower carb.
Um.... what?
What does high cholesterol have to do with heart disease?
Cholesterol is a waxy substance found in cells in all parts of the body. When there is too much cholesterol in your blood, cholesterol can build up on the walls of your arteries and cause blood clots. Cholesterol can clog your arteries and keep your heart from getting the blood it needs. This can cause a heart attack.
There are two types of cholesterol:
Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is often called the "bad" type of cholesterol because it can clog the arteries that carry blood to your heart. For LDL, lower numbers are better.
High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is known as "good" cholesterol because it takes the bad cholesterol out of your blood and keeps it from building up in your arteries. For HDL, higher numbers are better.
All women age 20 and older should have their blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels checked at least once every 5 years
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/heart-disease.html#g
This is slowly becoming outdated. Woo if you will. There really is no evidence that on must have a bunch of LDL to have heart diaese as a woman. There is a link in men below age 50, but in women, there is nothing that is strong enough to be called evidence. There are lots of guidelines but (IMO) they are based on fluff.
I think you are being too diplomatic. It is old woo of the worst sort - rehashed regurgitated poorly researched woo.0 -
Cholesterol levels are not thought to be a risk factor for women, except that women who have low cholesterol are at greater risk of CAD, especially as they age.
Plus, saturated fat generally does not raise cholesterol, or if it does it is generally the more beneficial fluffier LDL or HDL. Lp a and triglycerides usually go down in a diet higher in saturated fats, especially if it is lower carb.
Um.... what?
What does high cholesterol have to do with heart disease?
Cholesterol is a waxy substance found in cells in all parts of the body. When there is too much cholesterol in your blood, cholesterol can build up on the walls of your arteries and cause blood clots. Cholesterol can clog your arteries and keep your heart from getting the blood it needs. This can cause a heart attack.
There are two types of cholesterol:
Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is often called the "bad" type of cholesterol because it can clog the arteries that carry blood to your heart. For LDL, lower numbers are better.
High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is known as "good" cholesterol because it takes the bad cholesterol out of your blood and keeps it from building up in your arteries. For HDL, higher numbers are better.
All women age 20 and older should have their blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels checked at least once every 5 years
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/heart-disease.html#g
This is slowly becoming outdated. Woo if you will. There really is no evidence that on must have a bunch of LDL to have heart diaese as a woman. There is a link in men below age 50, but in women, there is nothing that is strong enough to be called evidence. There are lots of guidelines but (IMO) they are based on fluff.
I think you are being too diplomatic. It is old woo of the worst sort - rehashed regurgitated poorly researched woo.
Citation needed.
And let's try to do better than a business magazine this time mmmmkay.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Cholesterol levels are not thought to be a risk factor for women, except that women who have low cholesterol are at greater risk of CAD, especially as they age.
Plus, saturated fat generally does not raise cholesterol, or if it does it is generally the more beneficial fluffier LDL or HDL. Lp a and triglycerides usually go down in a diet higher in saturated fats, especially if it is lower carb.
Um.... what?
What does high cholesterol have to do with heart disease?
Cholesterol is a waxy substance found in cells in all parts of the body. When there is too much cholesterol in your blood, cholesterol can build up on the walls of your arteries and cause blood clots. Cholesterol can clog your arteries and keep your heart from getting the blood it needs. This can cause a heart attack.
There are two types of cholesterol:
Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is often called the "bad" type of cholesterol because it can clog the arteries that carry blood to your heart. For LDL, lower numbers are better.
High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is known as "good" cholesterol because it takes the bad cholesterol out of your blood and keeps it from building up in your arteries. For HDL, higher numbers are better.
All women age 20 and older should have their blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels checked at least once every 5 years
http://www.womenshealth.gov/publications/our-publications/fact-sheet/heart-disease.html#g
This is slowly becoming outdated. Woo if you will. There really is no evidence that on must have a bunch of LDL to have heart diaese as a woman. There is a link in men below age 50, but in women, there is nothing that is strong enough to be called evidence. There are lots of guidelines but (IMO) they are based on fluff.
I think you are being too diplomatic. It is old woo of the worst sort - rehashed regurgitated poorly researched woo.
Citation needed.
And let's try to do better than a business magazine this time mmmmkay.
You chose to read the business magazine article rather than follow the link to the Jama page?? I can't help you.1
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