Low carb... Is it a diet fad?
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Tentatively asking a question that may open a bigger can of worms... Is there a concrete definition of SAD? As in a certain macro breakdown, certain sugar level, etc? Basically, what is the standard for the Standard American Diet?
Macros for the SAD are given as 50/15/35 as mentioned in my previous post, with the largest source of sugar being sugary beverages such as Coke. The biggest problem with the so-called SAD isn't so much the macro content but the caloric content and amount of foods with low nutritional density such as soda and snack foods. Also, caloric consumption has increased about 600 calories per day since the early 50's and activity levels have plumetted. However, SAD is just an aggrigate measure like BMI and useful for comparing populations but not so much as a predictor of individual dietary habits. I really don't know too many people that would qualify as eating the SAD.
Who determined the macros and content of the SAD?
Aggrigate food consumption measures is how I assume it's done. Food supply is a known quanitity so estimates can be drawn based on those and the population stats. Although, a properly done survey could be used as well I don't think that's how it was arrived at.
That makes sense. I guess it's the best that can be done on a large scale. I wonder if they adjust for homegrown food. I realize that most people don't grow much of their food, but it's not a small population that has a small summer garden. And then there are those that raise or hunt some of their meat. (oh, I wonder if they include hunting data). Not many people raise their own cookies or Doritos though.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Tentatively asking a question that may open a bigger can of worms... Is there a concrete definition of SAD? As in a certain macro breakdown, certain sugar level, etc? Basically, what is the standard for the Standard American Diet?
Macros for the SAD are given as 50/15/35 as mentioned in my previous post, with the largest source of sugar being sugary beverages such as Coke. The biggest problem with the so-called SAD isn't so much the macro content but the caloric content and amount of foods with low nutritional density such as soda and snack foods. Also, caloric consumption has increased about 600 calories per day since the early 50's and activity levels have plumetted. However, SAD is just an aggrigate measure like BMI and useful for comparing populations but not so much as a predictor of individual dietary habits. I really don't know too many people that would qualify as eating the SAD.
Who determined the macros and content of the SAD?
Aggrigate food consumption measures is how I assume it's done. Food supply is a known quanitity so estimates can be drawn based on those and the population stats. Although, a properly done survey could be used as well I don't think that's how it was arrived at.
I think they look at both, although the consumption overall is considered a better source than the surveys by many in measuring changes over time (survey information is unreliable in various ways).
Surveys do add more resolution to the data but they can be very inaccurate. There's a lot of great techniques but I'm just not the familiar with most of the details of this data. It's takes a lot of statistical gymnastics to take the macro measurements and apply them to families and individuals.0 -
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
Because this is an over-simplification of how things work. Macros are determined by your goals, medical needs, and personal eating preference. And while there is a lot of science that would suggest a benefit from .8-1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, fat and carbs really don't have standards (outside of essential fatty-acid minimums).
Overall, macros can be very subjective in nature and your macros vs another persons can differ vastly. Micro's have some RDA standards but it's hard to truly know if you are achieving all of those since most of the MFP database doesn't accurately address that. So at best, you can incorporate a variety of foods to ensure the highest availability of nutrients.
Regarding the bold, I couldn't agree more.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
I agree but none of those are issues with a proper balanced diet either. Many people who go low carb fall into the trap of eating high sat fat, high sodium foods and don't eat enough plants so that wouldn't do well for them if they had such concerns. Dietary choices go far beyond what your macros are as Nick was pointing out.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
And genetics, body composition and exercise play a much greater roll then just the particular diet that one follows.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.0 -
I don't think anyone claimed that eating a healthful diet ensures that one will be healthy.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think anyone claimed that eating a healthful diet ensures that one will be healthy.
seriously, it can improve your health, but it is not going to prevent cancer or other disease....
there are people that are healthy and have had heart attacks or get a cancer diagnosis....
0 -
The best way of eating that is sustainable and you can still eat all your macros along with counting calories is intermittent fasting0
-
Deadlifter87 wrote: »The best way of eating that is sustainable and you can still eat all your macros along with counting calories is intermittent fasting
well that is not true either... I did IF for six months and while I liked it, it did not fit into my lifestyle and was not sustainable...
and I do not do IF and I have no problem hitting macros or micros...0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.
best thing they ever did was bring back the ignore feature...0 -
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
Because this is an over-simplification of how things work. Macros are determined by your goals, medical needs, and personal eating preference. And while there is a lot of science that would suggest a benefit from .8-1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, fat and carbs really don't have standards (outside of essential fatty-acid minimums).
Overall, macros can be very subjective in nature and your macros vs another persons can differ vastly. Micro's have some RDA standards but it's hard to truly know if you are achieving all of those since most of the MFP database doesn't accurately address that. So at best, you can incorporate a variety of foods to ensure the highest availability of nutrients.
Regarding the bold, I couldn't agree more.
Yes but wouldn't the inclusion of "your" in NDJ's statement - 'hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target' cover the individual needs and variability that needs to be considered based on specific personal goals, medical needs, and eating preferences?
I think we are all going around in circles (WSTBD) about semantics. I feel a bit like Bill Clinton, but it comes down to what your interpretation of "is" is. Should the statement be:
If an individual hits the appropriate macro and micro nutrient goals for their specific needs and stays within an appropriate calorie target, then any diet can be healthy?0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.
My point is that food is not the only thing that affects our health.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
And genetics, body composition and exercise play a much greater roll then just the particular diet that one follows.
Exactly. A person eating a "healthy diet" may be quite unhealthy if they are sedentary. Activity level is just as important, if not more so.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
And genetics, body composition and exercise play a much greater roll then just the particular diet that one follows.
Exactly. A person eating a "healthy diet" may be quite unhealthy if they are sedentary. Activity level is just as important, if not more so.
Certainly can agree with this. (Although I don't think anyone was claiming otherwise. I do think too often minor dietary differences get focused on while more significant things are ignored.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.
My point is that food is not the only thing that affects our health.
I don't see where anyone said it is.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.
My point is that food is not the only thing that affects our health.
I don't see where anyone said it is.
who is saying food is the only thing that affects health?
wow, need to argue more...geez...0 -
I do low carb low fat, high protein and high fiber. If I follow weight watchers pts and label all my food at home before I begin the week it helps. I see the things with high pts and chose them less because I only have so many pts I can eat a day. You also get extra cheat pts. that basically add to your weekly intake. You have to take a test to find out how many pts. you get. Tall? short? man? woman? active? sedentary? age? All of this determines number of starting pts. I get 26 a day...and 7 daily cheats or I can save them and add them up for the weekend for a cheat meal. All veggies and fruits are free except canned fruit. If you rinse it with water then 0 again. Potatoes, corn and avocados have pts. Plus drinking lots of water keeps you from eating junk. even 6 glasses a day can help if you are consistent. There are many diets out there that can help you lose weight...but I know there are many people out there that have trouble spots. People who are not necessarily unhappy with whole body...but body parts. The low carb diet is good for people who tend to carry weight in their lower belly, hips and thighs. Basically the whole mid section. Once you keep this up you start to learn pts by heart. It is easier to go out to eat, and easier to know what to cook or have together. Plus it is a well balanced diet.0
-
Cbefitforlife wrote: »I do low carb low fat, high protein and high fiber. If I follow weight watchers pts and label all my food at home before I begin the week it helps. I see the things with high pts and chose them less because I only have so many pts I can eat a day. You also get extra cheat pts. that basically add to your weekly intake. You have to take a test to find out how many pts. you get. Tall? short? man? woman? active? sedentary? age? All of this determines number of starting pts. I get 26 a day...and 7 daily cheats or I can save them and add them up for the weekend for a cheat meal. All veggies and fruits are free except canned fruit. If you rinse it with water then 0 again. Potatoes, corn and avocados have pts. Plus drinking lots of water keeps you from eating junk. even 6 glasses a day can help if you are consistent. There are many diets out there that can help you lose weight...but I know there are many people out there that have trouble spots. People who are not necessarily unhappy with whole body...but body parts. The low carb diet is good for people who tend to carry weight in their lower belly, hips and thighs. Basically the whole mid section. Once you keep this up you start to learn pts by heart. It is easier to go out to eat, and easier to know what to cook or have together. Plus it is a well balanced diet.
low carb is not going to help you lose belly fat any faster then moderate carb/high protein will.
and explain to me how it is a balanced diet when you are consuming 50% more than the minimum fat requirement?0 -
Cbefitforlife wrote: »I do low carb low fat, high protein and high fiber.
Which means what? Seems hard to do low carb/high protein and get high fiber, but maybe you mean something different than I would by that.0 -
I feel you can keep under your calorie count and still eat crap! Agreeing with Action Annie. A well balanced diet it the key. If i eat lots of carbs for breakfast and use tons of my pts. It forces me to eat more fruit and veggies and protein the other meals, or i can spread it out. It is so flexible. To me it is the best diet out there. A lot of people think it is hoax because of Oprah doing the commercials now...but it has been around for many years and has worked for many people, and now with the new program it is better then ever. If you are struggling to lose weight and keep it off...try weight watchers. What can you lose? Oh yeah...weight!!!!!0
-
Cbefitforlife wrote: »I feel you can keep under your calorie count and still eat crap! Agreeing with Action Annie. A well balanced diet it the key. If i eat lots of carbs for breakfast and use tons of my pts. It forces me to eat more fruit and veggies and protein the other meals, or i can spread it out. It is so flexible. To me it is the best diet out there. A lot of people think it is hoax because of Oprah doing the commercials now...but it has been around for many years and has worked for many people, and now with the new program it is better then ever. If you are struggling to lose weight and keep it off...try weight watchers. What can you lose? Oh yeah...weight!!!!!
My issue with WW is that it cuts calories by a ridiculous amount. My wife tried it and they had her on a 1000 calorie diet and only had 20 lbs to lose.
And the weight you can lose will be more than fat if it's that aggressive.. it will also be muscle, which will mean a lower metabolism.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."
Stating that a low carb diet is not healthy is just an opinion. Your opinion. A predjudice against eating more fats than average perhaps? My personal experiences with a LCHF diet certainly does not support the idea that it is unhealthy either.
I obviously did not say it was inherently unhealthy. Not sure why you are arguing against something I did not say. I do think a low carb diet with low vegetables and lots of processed meat is unhealthy, but many people who eat LCHF are careful to have quite nutrition-conscious diets.
Perhaps I misunderstood your statement of "No, some diets are healthier than other diets. Low carb is not one of them." I took that to mean that you were statingLCHF is not healthier than any other diets - on the unhealthy end of the dietary spectrum.
It helps to read all the sentences in a comment. The two you mention were followed by "One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets." I think that's pretty clear.
not sure why it is so hard for some to understand that if you hit your micros and macros and stay within your calorie target then any diet is "healthy." Individual foods dont make a diet good or bad, what makes a diet bad is bad choices.....
I don't agree. I think there are other factors such as nutrients, vitamins, sodium, sugar, etc. People have to think about diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, fatty liver...
i clearly said hit your micros = micro nutrients. And how would a healthy individual develop a fatty liver or high cholesterol if they are getting adequate nutrition, staying in calorie targets, and getting macro nutrients?
so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy ...
Hitting micros and macros is certainly no guarantee of health. Disease can strike regardless of diet.
Needs to argue, again what's your point? Hit your macros and live life to the fullest.
My point is that food is not the only thing that affects our health.
I don't see where anyone said it is.
It stems from this:
"so person A does low carb and gets adequate nutrition and loses weight; person B does moderate carb/protein/fata, gets adequate nutrition, and loses weight.
Why is person A healthier than person B?
the answer is that they are both healthy"
Which doesn't say they both have healthy diets, it says they are both healthy. Very different.0 -
Cbefitforlife wrote: »I feel you can keep under your calorie count and still eat crap! Agreeing with Action Annie. A well balanced diet it the key. If i eat lots of carbs for breakfast and use tons of my pts. It forces me to eat more fruit and veggies and protein the other meals, or i can spread it out. It is so flexible. To me it is the best diet out there. A lot of people think it is hoax because of Oprah doing the commercials now...but it has been around for many years and has worked for many people, and now with the new program it is better then ever. If you are struggling to lose weight and keep it off...try weight watchers. What can you lose? Oh yeah...weight!!!!!
... and money. Don't forget the money.
In all honesty, if their points system helps you eat better and you can afford it, then it's a great system for you.0 -
Cbefitforlife wrote: »I feel you can keep under your calorie count and still eat crap! Agreeing with Action Annie. A well balanced diet it the key. If i eat lots of carbs for breakfast and use tons of my pts. It forces me to eat more fruit and veggies and protein the other meals, or i can spread it out. It is so flexible. To me it is the best diet out there. A lot of people think it is hoax because of Oprah doing the commercials now...but it has been around for many years and has worked for many people, and now with the new program it is better then ever. If you are struggling to lose weight and keep it off...try weight watchers. What can you lose? Oh yeah...weight!!!!!
Where did anyone advise that someone eat crap as long as you are in a calorie deficit? You can also eat a balanced diet, focusing on staying within an appropriate calorie deficit and logging your foods here for free...
Nothing against Weight Watchers, it's just no more a magical solution than any other program. Weight loss results from your CI<CO. How you take in your calories, what kinds of foods you eat, and how you track them are all up to the individual.0 -
I don't think anyone thinks WW is a hoax. It just doesn't work for everyone. I eat WAY too many "free" items that would add up quickly.0
-
Cbefitforlife wrote: »I feel you can keep under your calorie count and still eat crap! Agreeing with Action Annie. A well balanced diet it the key. If i eat lots of carbs for breakfast and use tons of my pts. It forces me to eat more fruit and veggies and protein the other meals, or i can spread it out. It is so flexible. To me it is the best diet out there. A lot of people think it is hoax because of Oprah doing the commercials now...but it has been around for many years and has worked for many people, and now with the new program it is better then ever. If you are struggling to lose weight and keep it off...try weight watchers. What can you lose? Oh yeah...weight!!!!!
My issue with WW is that it cuts calories by a ridiculous amount. My wife tried it and they had her on a 1000 calorie diet and only had 20 lbs to lose.
I've heard that too. I believe that was my impression from Losing It (which is a pretty good look at a bunch of different weight loss programs).
My issue with WW has always been that the point thing seems, well, pointless. Why not just use actual calories? Also the free fruits and veg isn't reality. I am perfectly capable of constructing a healthy diet with plenty of vegetables and some fruit without tricking myself into it by pretending like those foods don't count.
But I do think it works for some -- can be an easy and flexible approach and some probably like the support. Just not how I work.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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