Low carb... Is it a diet fad?
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
Gianfranco_R 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."
Probably you are right, but you should define what is a "good diet". Do you think, for instance, that the SAD is a good diet?
Of course not, but the problem is not the macro ratios, but the specific foods included and not, and the overall quantity. Generalizing about "fat" and "protein" and "carbs" ignores the fact that the source of those things matters too, as well as overall calories. That someone overate soda and candy does not mean that "carbs" make for a bad diet, just as the fact that someone overate McD's fries and BigMacs does not mean that "fat" is inherently bad for you. And one of the biggest problems with the SAD (besides too many calories by far) is too few vegetables.
(As I've said time and time again, in threads you've been in, so you knew my answer.)0 -
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."
If implemented correctly, one can definitely low carb in an extremely healthy manor, unfortunately, the way its discribe on our forum (bullet proof coffee, high sat fats, low veggie and fruit). But if one had a lot of veggies, low sugar fruits, low sat fats but high unsaturated fats (especially poly/mono and omega threes) it could be superior to many diets.
That isn't to say that an equivalent high carb diet couldnt contain just as many nutrients dense foods. And personally i would never try to rank one diet over another if it addresses nutritional goals and is implemented correctly.
But i do think it would be just as wrong to label or lump all lchf diets into the unhealthy category.
Which is precisely why I said one can do a healthy or very non healthy version of low carb. The carb % is not the issue. We are saying the same thing, I think.0 -
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?0
-
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?
*kitten* stirrer!
0 -
queenliz99 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?
*kitten* stirrer!
No I'm genuinely asking! We throw around SAD all the time but I've never seen it defined concretely. I don't know if it's like "clean" but one would think that with the word "standard" in it, there would be some, you know, standards to measure against?
0 -
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?
I've asked the same thing but never got a straight answer. People mention it so often but the definition seems to be as variable as 'clean eating'.
Therefore, I've come to think of it as the polar opposite of 'clean eating'. Both are mysterious and undefinable, yet one is super duper good and the other super duper bad.0 -
I admittedly didn't read the whole thread but wanted to add my 2 cents. I think it depends on how u define low carb. I did Atkins in law school and transitioned into south beach because it seemed healthier, and stayed in phase one for 3 weeks and phase 2 until I got to my goal weight. There are pros and cons. I feel like I donated a "carb fear" so I'm always constantly watching carbs, which I think is negative in a sense and positive in a sense. It helps me watch carbs and helped me discover healthier carbs. Instead of white rice, I buy sushi with quinoa now and get brown or wild rice/quinoa blends. I buy whole grain bread instead of processed white. I shop at the farmers market and health food stores more. The flip side is I am wary to eat fruit and oatmeal because I look at how many carbs and often opt for something else. I think it's about balance in carbs. Swapping healthy carbs and eating them in moderation like everything. Too much protein can cause problems as well so you need to find a healthy balance. And ketosis is not good even though people lose weight while in ketosis.
BALANCE is key.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.
Thanks. Will try to read some more if I have time in the office today.
So it doesn't seem that standard after all... Hmm. Maybe it should be renamed the Strawman American Diet...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Gianfranco_R 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."
Probably you are right, but you should define what is a "good diet". Do you think, for instance, that the SAD is a good diet?
Of course not, but the problem is not the macro ratios, but the specific foods included and not, and the overall quantity. Generalizing about "fat" and "protein" and "carbs" ignores the fact that the source of those things matters too, as well as overall calories. That someone overate soda and candy does not mean that "carbs" make for a bad diet, just as the fact that someone overate McD's fries and BigMacs does not mean that "fat" is inherently bad for you. And one of the biggest problems with the SAD (besides too many calories by far) is too few vegetables.
(As I've said time and time again, in threads you've been in, so you knew my answer.)
Yes, it was more a rhetorical question. Given someone's reaction, the point was also well understood
0 -
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.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.....0 -
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?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »queenliz99 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?
*kitten* stirrer!
No I'm genuinely asking! We throw around SAD all the time but I've never seen it defined concretely. I don't know if it's like "clean" but one would think that with the word "standard" in it, there would be some, you know, standards to measure against?
I've asked this too, as well as how "standard" it is.
I think it's based on average buying habits and consumption based on surveys vs. what's recommended. The issue, as mentioned, tends to be far too many calories, too much sat fat and transfats and low-nutrient sugary (and often fatty) foods, like soda and donuts, and too few vegetables. Not that we have an out of whack macro ratio. Our macros are in line with plenty of much more healthful diets. (And obviously many Americans eat good, calorie appropriate diets with vegetables. I thought the term was weird when I first heard it, since I thought of the SAD as meat, potatoes (or some other starch/grain) plus vegetables (with milk if you were a kid). That's how most Americans seemed to eat when I was growing up.)
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2014/01/standard-american-diet-sad-charts0 -
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?
Studies of buying habits and what people eat that are done routinely. The same sources that the US Dietary Guidelines look to in recommending that people (on average) increase or lower consumption of various categories of food. On average people eat 2 servings of veg and should eat 5-7 or some such.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.....
Perhaps because a statement that simple just isn't true. It would depend on whether your micro and macro goals are set at a healthy range. And if most of your micros come from vitamin supplements I think there is definitely room for argument on how 'healthy' the diet is.0 -
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.0 -
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).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions