The barb is in the Carb
Replies
-
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This is slowly becoming outdated.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.
I followed the link, and as I pointed out the first time, it was just an opinion piece by a researcher with a known anti-carb bias (Ludwig). NOT a peer-reviewed article.0 -
The amazing thing is that so much of the low-carb argument is centered around diabetes. And then there's the cholesterol argument coming up in this thread - and the latest information I can find from a legitimate research study proves that the most worrisome problem for diabetics in regards to heart disease is low HDL (that's the healthy blood serum cholesterol). Which, by the way, it has been proven can be lowered by ingestion of dietary monounsaturated fats like olive oil, and the avoidance of saturated fats like dairy butter. Lower the LDL, raise the HDL. For those without concerns like diabetes and heart disease, maybe no worries? But that's not what we've been discussing here. Own the diseases and the dietary concerns that go with them. Yes, low carb can help diabetes in some cases. But so can a diet low in saturated fat.
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/26/1/16.short0 -
Good balanced article in source I don't especially respect (but you can find or follow backup):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/saturated-fat_b_4156320.html
For me, the point about blue zones is significant and puts to the lie the low carb claim that carbs are inherently bad and a carnivorous diet or one that eats unlimited cheese and processed meats healthy.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.
Lowering cholesterol tends to lead to a worse health outcomes in women, postmenopausal or not. The thought that it was the hormones that protect women from heart disease has also lost credibility in recent years. It can't be proven.
Cholesterol has very little to do with your risk of heart disease unless you are a man, under age 50, with high cholesterol levels, as I understand 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.
Lowering cholesterol tends to lead to a worse health outcomes in women, postmenopausal or not. The thought that it was the hormones that protect women from heart disease has also lost credibility in recent years. It can't be proven.
Cholesterol has very little to do with your risk of heart disease unless you are a man, under age 50, with high cholesterol levels, as I understand it.
You might want to stop perpetuating that myth. It's dangerous. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in women (in the US). http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2013/index.htm
-and on the subject of 'Women and Cholesterol' http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/UnderstandYourRiskforHighCholesterol/Women-and-Cholesterol_UCM_305565_Article.jsp
they clearly say in a bold red box, just in case you miss it, that 'It's not just a man's problem'.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/What-Your-Cholesterol-Levels-Mean_UCM_305562_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/WhyCholesterolMatters/Why-Cholesterol-Matters_UCM_001212_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/UnderstandYourRiskforHighCholesterol/Understand-Your-Risk-for-High-Cholesterol_UCM_001213_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/Prevention-and-Treatment-of-High-Cholesterol_UCM_001215_Article.jsp
In these links The American Heart Association says the exact opposite of what you're saying.--High cholesterol is one of the major controllable risk factors for coronary heart disease, heart attack and stroke. As your blood cholesterol rises, so does your risk of coronary heart disease.
--When too much LDL (bad) cholesterol circulates in the blood, it can slowly build up in the inner walls of the arteries that feed the heart and brain (View an animation of cholesterol). Together with other substances, cholesterol can form a thick, hard deposit called plaque that can narrow the arteries and make them less flexible. This condition is known as atherosclerosis. If a clot forms and blocks a narrowed artery, a heart attack or stroke can result.
--Keeping your cholesterol levels healthy is a great way to keep your heart healthy – and lower your chances of getting heart disease or having a stroke.
--A low LDL cholesterol level is considered good for your heart health.
--A diet high in saturated and trans fats raises LDL cholesterol.
--The American Heart Association recommends LDL (bad) cholesterol-lowering drug therapy for most women with heart disease. Drug therapy should be combined with a diet low in saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, and added sugars and rich in fruits, vegetables, fiber-rich whole-grain foods, and fat-free and low-fat dairy.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.
Because of hunger, my dear fellow. It's about diet adherence. I'm not debating CICO either, but that has escaped your attention, evidently.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?
because of insulin response and ensuing hunger.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?
because of insulin response and ensuing hunger.
I guess you missed the part about feeling satiated.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?
because of insulin response and ensuing hunger.
What hunger? Are you saying that anyone who doesn't eat low carb is going to have issues with hunger? Because there have been countless examples of people in this thread (myself included) who aren't doing LC who don't struggle with hunger.
Same with the insulin response. Why would a person with no issues related to IR need to eat LC?
I have no issues with people who choose to eat LC to help with their own individual medical conditions or because they find it satiating for them. But that doesn't mean that everyone needs to follow this way of eating or that it is superior in some way to eating a balanced diet that doesn't restrict any macro.
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
because of insulin response and ensuing hunger.
What hunger? Are you saying that anyone who doesn't eat low carb is going to have issues with hunger? Because there have been countless examples of people in this thread (myself included) who aren't doing LC who don't struggle with hunger.
Same with the insulin response. Why would a person with no issues related to IR need to eat LC?
I have no issues with people who choose to eat LC to help with their own individual medical conditions or because they find it satiating for them. But that doesn't mean that everyone needs to follow this way of eating or that it is superior in some way to eating a balanced diet that doesn't restrict any macro.
Trust me, this isnt worth it. Its the same wrong argument he has been having for months. Like those of of who dont follow low carb dont eat veggies, fruits or lean meats.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?
because of insulin response and ensuing hunger.
I see you missed this part of the post: 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?
Or are you saying that it's impossible for anyone not eating low carb to feel satiated?0 -
I wonder how many of these atkins advocates have ever travelled? Rice, grain, and potatoes are staple foods in so many countries: Vietnam, china, india,... and you try telling an italian that their bread and pasta will lead them to an early grave.
If everyone followed the low carb approach the price of meat would go through the roof, as would global CO2 emissions.2 -
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.
Because of hunger, my dear fellow. It's about diet adherence. I'm not debating CICO either, but that has escaped your attention, evidently.
Ahh yes, the argument that since you are hungry eating one way, everyone else in the world must be. That's logical...0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
because of insulin response and ensuing hunger.
What hunger? Are you saying that anyone who doesn't eat low carb is going to have issues with hunger? Because there have been countless examples of people in this thread (myself included) who aren't doing LC who don't struggle with hunger.
Same with the insulin response. Why would a person with no issues related to IR need to eat LC?
I have no issues with people who choose to eat LC to help with their own individual medical conditions or because they find it satiating for them. But that doesn't mean that everyone needs to follow this way of eating or that it is superior in some way to eating a balanced diet that doesn't restrict any macro.
Trust me, this isnt worth it. Its the same wrong argument he has been having for months. Like those of of who dont follow low carb dont eat veggies, fruits or lean meats.
Tell that to the 2 bananas, the 2 servings of Brussels sprouts, the house salad with lettuce, carrots and cabbage, and the servings of strawberries I had yesterday. I'm sure that 100 cal pack of Oreos I ate really messed everything up though...lol.0 -
You have much to learn my friend...WinoGelato wrote: »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?
because of insulin response and ensuing hunger.
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.
Lowering cholesterol tends to lead to a worse health outcomes in women, postmenopausal or not. The thought that it was the hormones that protect women from heart disease has also lost credibility in recent years. It can't be proven.
Cholesterol has very little to do with your risk of heart disease unless you are a man, under age 50, with high cholesterol levels, as I understand it.
so you missed my post with research linked to prove that this is wrong.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
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.
Lowering cholesterol tends to lead to a worse health outcomes in women, postmenopausal or not. The thought that it was the hormones that protect women from heart disease has also lost credibility in recent years. It can't be proven.
Cholesterol has very little to do with your risk of heart disease unless you are a man, under age 50, with high cholesterol levels, as I understand it.
You might want to stop perpetuating that myth. It's dangerous. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in women (in the US). http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2013/index.htm
-and on the subject of 'Women and Cholesterol' http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/UnderstandYourRiskforHighCholesterol/Women-and-Cholesterol_UCM_305565_Article.jsp
they clearly say in a bold red box, just in case you miss it, that 'It's not just a man's problem'.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/What-Your-Cholesterol-Levels-Mean_UCM_305562_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/WhyCholesterolMatters/Why-Cholesterol-Matters_UCM_001212_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/UnderstandYourRiskforHighCholesterol/Understand-Your-Risk-for-High-Cholesterol_UCM_001213_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/Prevention-and-Treatment-of-High-Cholesterol_UCM_001215_Article.jsp
In these links The American Heart Association says the exact opposite of what you're saying.--High cholesterol is one of the major controllable risk factors for coronary heart disease, heart attack and stroke. As your blood cholesterol rises, so does your risk of coronary heart disease.
--When too much LDL (bad) cholesterol circulates in the blood, it can slowly build up in the inner walls of the arteries that feed the heart and brain (View an animation of cholesterol). Together with other substances, cholesterol can form a thick, hard deposit called plaque that can narrow the arteries and make them less flexible. This condition is known as atherosclerosis. If a clot forms and blocks a narrowed artery, a heart attack or stroke can result.
--Keeping your cholesterol levels healthy is a great way to keep your heart healthy – and lower your chances of getting heart disease or having a stroke.
--A low LDL cholesterol level is considered good for your heart health.
--A diet high in saturated and trans fats raises LDL cholesterol.
--The American Heart Association recommends LDL (bad) cholesterol-lowering drug therapy for most women with heart disease. Drug therapy should be combined with a diet low in saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, and added sugars and rich in fruits, vegetables, fiber-rich whole-grain foods, and fat-free and low-fat dairy.
Yes, heart disease is a problem, but high cholesterol doesn't cause it. There is no proof it does because it does not exist. At worst, it is a co-occurring situation.
Low cholesterol is linked to poor health, especially in women. Google it if you doubt it.
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.
Lowering cholesterol tends to lead to a worse health outcomes in women, postmenopausal or not. The thought that it was the hormones that protect women from heart disease has also lost credibility in recent years. It can't be proven.
Cholesterol has very little to do with your risk of heart disease unless you are a man, under age 50, with high cholesterol levels, as I understand it.
so you missed my post with research linked to prove that this is wrong.
No, I didn't. There was no proof. They did not even say cholesterol causes heart disease.
I have gone off course here. Apologies.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »
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.
Lowering cholesterol tends to lead to a worse health outcomes in women, postmenopausal or not. The thought that it was the hormones that protect women from heart disease has also lost credibility in recent years. It can't be proven.
Cholesterol has very little to do with your risk of heart disease unless you are a man, under age 50, with high cholesterol levels, as I understand it.
You might want to stop perpetuating that myth. It's dangerous. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in women (in the US). http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2013/index.htm
-and on the subject of 'Women and Cholesterol' http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/UnderstandYourRiskforHighCholesterol/Women-and-Cholesterol_UCM_305565_Article.jsp
they clearly say in a bold red box, just in case you miss it, that 'It's not just a man's problem'.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/What-Your-Cholesterol-Levels-Mean_UCM_305562_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/WhyCholesterolMatters/Why-Cholesterol-Matters_UCM_001212_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/UnderstandYourRiskforHighCholesterol/Understand-Your-Risk-for-High-Cholesterol_UCM_001213_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/Prevention-and-Treatment-of-High-Cholesterol_UCM_001215_Article.jsp
In these links The American Heart Association says the exact opposite of what you're saying.--High cholesterol is one of the major controllable risk factors for coronary heart disease, heart attack and stroke. As your blood cholesterol rises, so does your risk of coronary heart disease.
--When too much LDL (bad) cholesterol circulates in the blood, it can slowly build up in the inner walls of the arteries that feed the heart and brain (View an animation of cholesterol). Together with other substances, cholesterol can form a thick, hard deposit called plaque that can narrow the arteries and make them less flexible. This condition is known as atherosclerosis. If a clot forms and blocks a narrowed artery, a heart attack or stroke can result.
--Keeping your cholesterol levels healthy is a great way to keep your heart healthy – and lower your chances of getting heart disease or having a stroke.
--A low LDL cholesterol level is considered good for your heart health.
--A diet high in saturated and trans fats raises LDL cholesterol.
--The American Heart Association recommends LDL (bad) cholesterol-lowering drug therapy for most women with heart disease. Drug therapy should be combined with a diet low in saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, and added sugars and rich in fruits, vegetables, fiber-rich whole-grain foods, and fat-free and low-fat dairy.
Yes, heart disease is a problem, but high cholesterol doesn't cause it. There is no proof it does because it does not exist. At worst, it is a co-occurring situation.
Low cholesterol is linked to poor health, especially in women. Google it if you doubt it.
Hahaha @nvmomketo VS American Heart Association. I wonder...who's peddling woo.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
because of insulin response and ensuing hunger.
What hunger? Are you saying that anyone who doesn't eat low carb is going to have issues with hunger? Because there have been countless examples of people in this thread (myself included) who aren't doing LC who don't struggle with hunger.
Same with the insulin response. Why would a person with no issues related to IR need to eat LC?
I have no issues with people who choose to eat LC to help with their own individual medical conditions or because they find it satiating for them. But that doesn't mean that everyone needs to follow this way of eating or that it is superior in some way to eating a balanced diet that doesn't restrict any macro.
Trust me, this isnt worth it. Its the same wrong argument he has been having for months. Like those of of who dont follow low carb dont eat veggies, fruits or lean meats.
Tell that to the 2 bananas, the 2 servings of Brussels sprouts, the house salad with lettuce, carrots and cabbage, and the servings of strawberries I had yesterday. I'm sure that 100 cal pack of Oreos I ate really messed everything up though...lol.
I get the same result with my salad; 1 cup of arugula and spinach each, shredded cheddar, carrots, cucumber, 1/2 avocado, 2 hard boiled eggs and ranch.
And even though i went from 220 to 175 (my high school weight) eating this way, i am sure this isnt effective. I would actually love to see some studies on satiety if anyone has any. I personally dont think fat is very filling.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »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?
because of insulin response and ensuing hunger.
What hunger? Are you saying that anyone who doesn't eat low carb is going to have issues with hunger? Because there have been countless examples of people in this thread (myself included) who aren't doing LC who don't struggle with hunger.
Same with the insulin response. Why would a person with no issues related to IR need to eat LC?
I have no issues with people who choose to eat LC to help with their own individual medical conditions or because they find it satiating for them. But that doesn't mean that everyone needs to follow this way of eating or that it is superior in some way to eating a balanced diet that doesn't restrict any macro.
Trust me, this isnt worth it. Its the same wrong argument he has been having for months. Like those of of who dont follow low carb dont eat veggies, fruits or lean meats.
Tell that to the 2 bananas, the 2 servings of Brussels sprouts, the house salad with lettuce, carrots and cabbage, and the servings of strawberries I had yesterday. I'm sure that 100 cal pack of Oreos I ate really messed everything up though...lol.
I get the same result with my salad; 1 cup of arugula and spinach each, shredded cheddar, carrots, cucumber, 1/2 avocado, 2 hard boiled eggs and ranch.
And even though i went from 220 to 175 (my high school weight) eating this way, i am sure this isnt effective. I would actually love to see some studies on satiety if anyone has any. I personally dont think fat is very filling.
I have a bad habit of just remembering the gist of articles, but I seem to recall "science" saying protein and fiberous carb sources as being the most filling.0 -
Traveler120 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »
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.
Lowering cholesterol tends to lead to a worse health outcomes in women, postmenopausal or not. The thought that it was the hormones that protect women from heart disease has also lost credibility in recent years. It can't be proven.
Cholesterol has very little to do with your risk of heart disease unless you are a man, under age 50, with high cholesterol levels, as I understand it.
You might want to stop perpetuating that myth. It's dangerous. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in women (in the US). http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/2013/index.htm
-and on the subject of 'Women and Cholesterol' http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/UnderstandYourRiskforHighCholesterol/Women-and-Cholesterol_UCM_305565_Article.jsp
they clearly say in a bold red box, just in case you miss it, that 'It's not just a man's problem'.
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/What-Your-Cholesterol-Levels-Mean_UCM_305562_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/WhyCholesterolMatters/Why-Cholesterol-Matters_UCM_001212_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/UnderstandYourRiskforHighCholesterol/Understand-Your-Risk-for-High-Cholesterol_UCM_001213_Article.jsp
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/PreventionTreatmentofHighCholesterol/Prevention-and-Treatment-of-High-Cholesterol_UCM_001215_Article.jsp
In these links The American Heart Association says the exact opposite of what you're saying.--High cholesterol is one of the major controllable risk factors for coronary heart disease, heart attack and stroke. As your blood cholesterol rises, so does your risk of coronary heart disease.
--When too much LDL (bad) cholesterol circulates in the blood, it can slowly build up in the inner walls of the arteries that feed the heart and brain (View an animation of cholesterol). Together with other substances, cholesterol can form a thick, hard deposit called plaque that can narrow the arteries and make them less flexible. This condition is known as atherosclerosis. If a clot forms and blocks a narrowed artery, a heart attack or stroke can result.
--Keeping your cholesterol levels healthy is a great way to keep your heart healthy – and lower your chances of getting heart disease or having a stroke.
--A low LDL cholesterol level is considered good for your heart health.
--A diet high in saturated and trans fats raises LDL cholesterol.
--The American Heart Association recommends LDL (bad) cholesterol-lowering drug therapy for most women with heart disease. Drug therapy should be combined with a diet low in saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol, sodium, and added sugars and rich in fruits, vegetables, fiber-rich whole-grain foods, and fat-free and low-fat dairy.
Yes, heart disease is a problem, but high cholesterol doesn't cause it. There is no proof it does because it does not exist. At worst, it is a co-occurring situation.
Low cholesterol is linked to poor health, especially in women. Google it if you doubt it.
Hahaha @nvmomketo VS American Heart Association. I wonder...who's peddling woo.
Yes well, if they provide proof I'll jump back on board.
At this point, I do no see cholesterol as a cause of CAD.
0 -
Hey guy's been quiet in here everyone done with the low carb conversation. Well for the short time I have been trying to do it, it has been pretty tuff. Although it has seemed to work if I work it.0
-
-
Pollywog_la wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
This is true. Protein has about 1/2 the response that carbs do. So people that have insulin resistance can get positive results by reducing protein and upping fat to over 75% of calories.
They CAN, but it's not required. Several people have already posted in this thread that they have insulin resistance and are fine with great numbers on moderate carbs.
Carbs should be treated as a sliding scale since there is no required minimum; people need to find a level that works for them.
The best way to treat diabetes/insulin resistance is REGULAR EXERCISE. helps the insulin do it's job by making it get the glucose into the cells.0 -
cwolfman13 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.
Well not being low carb doesn't automatically mean that a person eats high carb. I really like my moderate carb, moderate fat, moderate (although probably high compared to the general population) protein diet and find that it keeps me very satiated. Vegetables contain a lot of carbs and are also very filling IMHO. White potatos have been shown to be the most satiating food and are very high in carbs. If I drop carbs too low, it has the opposite effect for me; I feel hungry all the time, my energy levels go south and my workouts tank.
I don't think amny people here are saying you should never go low carb. For some people it might work very well and may also be medically necessary. Just pointing out that it's not the only way and whatever you choose a calorie deficit is still required.
I think many of the low carb zealots are so used to living in the extremes that they don't realize that balance and moderation even exist...if you're not low carb you must be eating all the carbs...and they're probably mostly cake and soda.
the notion of a well balanced diet seems to be foreign to many these days.
Diet extremism is a pet hate of mine. We now know that low fat isn't good for you, it doesn't necessarily mean that high fat is the way to go either. It annoys me how people forget that there's a middle ground
Thank you. This is so true. Ruling out or severely limiting a macronutrient is not sustainable forever..I feel like focusing on calories is the best way to adopt lifelong food relationships /habits to sustain a healthy weight.0 -
mommarnurse wrote: »
The best way to treat diabetes/insulin resistance is REGULAR EXERCISE. helps the insulin do it's job by making it get the glucose into the cells.
"A good way to help diabetes/insulin resistance is REGULAR EXERCISE."
I question if it is the best way, at least the best way for all people. It can be important for many, and definitely recommended. But weight loss is a bigger help, and I lost the bulk of my weight by diet change (carb reduction) without exercise.
0 -
Pollywog_la wrote: »mommarnurse wrote: »
The best way to treat diabetes/insulin resistance is REGULAR EXERCISE. helps the insulin do it's job by making it get the glucose into the cells.
"A good way to help diabetes/insulin resistance is REGULAR EXERCISE."
I question if it is the best way, at least the best way for all people. It can be important for many, and definitely recommended. But weight loss is a bigger help, and I lost the bulk of my weight by diet change (carb reduction) without exercise.
No doubt the word best may or may not be the ideal word to use.
You may want to google search metabolic syndrome and exercise or insulin resistance and exercise. It seems exercise without weight loss improves all markers of metabolic syndrome even if weight loss does not occur. The standard four(meaning many definitions have these four as common descriptors) heart disease, high blood pressure, IR(insulin resistance), and *obesity*. I realize the words' some, all, many' are going to be used to after this post since it is the belief of 'some' that 'many' may or may not benefit from the word 'all'.
People who lose weight quickly say 35 pounds in 3 months and have a belief their symptoms of IR have gone away probably also believe no need for retaining LBM with weight loss. There seems to be a contention for a select few that exercise isn't important but the 'weight loss' is what matters. IDK but it seems muscle retention along with weight loss provides a higher likelihood of improved insulin resistance as well as the other 3 above then just dropping weight.
edit *obesity*0 -
less calories more exercise healthier food choices enough protein more water0
-
Hey guy's been quiet in here everyone done with the low carb conversation. Well for the short time I have been trying to do it, it has been pretty tuff. Although it has seemed to work if I work it.
If it's something you're struggling with, low carb may not work for you. You need to find a way of eating that you can stick with long term. I lose so much better when I don't have a lot of restrictions and I don't have to feel like I'm "on the wagon". Then there's no falling off the wagon. And it's been fabulous!0 -
+1mommarnurse wrote: »Pollywog_la wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
This is true. Protein has about 1/2 the response that carbs do. So people that have insulin resistance can get positive results by reducing protein and upping fat to over 75% of calories.
They CAN, but it's not required. Several people have already posted in this thread that they have insulin resistance and are fine with great numbers on moderate carbs.
Carbs should be treated as a sliding scale since there is no required minimum; people need to find a level that works for them.
The best way to treat diabetes/insulin resistance is REGULAR EXERCISE. helps the insulin do it's job by making it get the glucose into the cells.
Regular exercise sends signals to our hormones as to what to do with the nutrients in the calories we take in...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions