Low carb... Is it a diet fad?
Replies
-
Most of North America moved towards high carb and it was a fail.
No, the actual change in macro ratios wasn't very significant when one looks at the better sources. Calories as a whole increased, both fat and carbs, with highly processed carbs increasing somewhat more. Trading off lower quality carbs for better quality carbs and lower quality fats for better quality fats would be beneficial. Changing macros when many healthy diets have more (and less) carbs as a percentage of the overall diet would likely make no difference. I think the SAD done in a LCHF way would likely be no difference from a health and fatness perspective and could be even more of a disaster than the current situation (as we replace the sugar in junk food with fake sugar and more fat, yay -- Snackwells in reverse).
Should someone try a low carb diet as a way to lose weight if they want? Sure, but not because "carbs" are unhealthy or that eating 50% of one's diet (or more, even) is unhealthy, and the constant evangelizing about the evils of eating carbs is tiresome.
0 -
I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
Citation needed.0 -
I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
What's the ratio you mention and do you have research for that? The frutarians are generally very good on those ratios from my understanding and you don't get higher carb than that as they are something like 80/10/10. I'm not saying I doubt what you are saying but I'm just curious as to the research on that and if it really even means anything in the end.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
Citation needed.
It's one study (that I have seen him post) and it was based on 76% carbs and I am not even sure if the type of carbs were controlled. But I would need to deep dive the specifics again. I forget why I took issue with it prior.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Micronutrients are found in foods that are not carb heavy too. Micronutrient intake is largely a non issue for any well planned diet regardless of the type including low carb, Zone, vegetarian.
Any well-planned diet, yes, but I've looked at plenty of super low carb diets here after the person in question promoted their specific diet to others, and they looked to be far short of some basic micros on a regular basis.And no, bonking is less of an issue for someone who is adapted to a ketogenic state. Extreme endurance athletes seem to benefit from very low carb diets for that very reason. Even if it was true that fat is a less efficient fuel, and it could be for those not yet keto adapted, it would be a non-issue for most low carb people including me.
Not true at all. Intense exercise can't be fueled without carbs, and if you look even at extreme endurance athletes who are promoted as low carb examples, they tend to eat lots of carbs when racing.
That isn't true. Intense exercise can be fueled without carbs. Carbs will provide some extra fuel though for those who need it during intense competition or training. Peter Attia MD refers to carbs as a performance enhancing drug.
Those who are not adding in carbs can still perform very well, but at a very high competitive level, say nationals or something, adding in some carbs for explosive, short duration sports would most likely give a slight edge.
I've seen no evidence of this. Ben Greenfield was consuming carbs during a race while on his keto experiment and still bonked, which Attia apparently attributed to him being glycogen depleted at the beginning of the race and they planned adding in even more carbs: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2013/10/ketogenic-triathlete.html
Another example that is frequently used as evidence that you don't need carbs for ultra endurance similar does use them on a race, even one that (as noted) should be the most conducive to that is Tim Olson, and again he does fuel with carbs:
http://anthonycolpo.com/tim-olson-another-low-carb-athlete-that-never-was/
As he says: "There is no such thing as using 100% fat or 100% carbohydrate to fuel any activity, although there is a spectrum in which fat predominates at low exercise intensities while carbohydrate increasingly predominates as the intensity increases."
Above 75% of your VO max you aren't going to be burning fat, or at least not much at all.
The mix of carb vs fat burning definitely spikes then but you still burn fat and you start to convert protein to carbs as well. However, keto adapted people might have different reactions I'll have to do some more research on this because it is an interesting topic.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
Citation needed.
It's one study (that I have seen him post) and it was based on 76% carbs and I am not even sure if the type of carbs were controlled. But I would need to deep dive the specifics again. I forget why I took issue with it prior.
Well, the bolded would be enough for me to take issue with it.
I know very few (ie zero) 'moderation' proponents that would ever come anywhere near 76% carb intake.0 -
[stevencloser wrote: »I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
Citation needed.
It's one study (that I have seen him post) and it was based on 76% carbs and I am not even sure if the type of carbs were controlled. But I would need to deep dive the specifics again. I forget why I took issue with it prior.
I can see a very high carb diet not having enough protein to create an HDL, but overall levels and ratios might be fine. I'm not sure if having a really high ratio is any more of a benefit than having a lower, but acceptable ratio.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
Citation needed.
It's one study (that I have seen him post) and it was based on 76% carbs and I am not even sure if the type of carbs were controlled. But I would need to deep dive the specifics again. I forget why I took issue with it prior.
Well, the bolded would be enough for me to take issue with it.
I know very few (ie zero) 'moderation' proponents that would ever come anywhere near 76% carb intake.
I think that was part of my argument. But it would be interesting if they compared against people following raw vegan, fruitarian or even a Mediterranean style diet.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Micronutrients are found in foods that are not carb heavy too. Micronutrient intake is largely a non issue for any well planned diet regardless of the type including low carb, Zone, vegetarian.
Any well-planned diet, yes, but I've looked at plenty of super low carb diets here after the person in question promoted their specific diet to others, and they looked to be far short of some basic micros on a regular basis.And no, bonking is less of an issue for someone who is adapted to a ketogenic state. Extreme endurance athletes seem to benefit from very low carb diets for that very reason. Even if it was true that fat is a less efficient fuel, and it could be for those not yet keto adapted, it would be a non-issue for most low carb people including me.
Not true at all. Intense exercise can't be fueled without carbs, and if you look even at extreme endurance athletes who are promoted as low carb examples, they tend to eat lots of carbs when racing.
That isn't true. Intense exercise can be fueled without carbs. Carbs will provide some extra fuel though for those who need it during intense competition or training. Peter Attia MD refers to carbs as a performance enhancing drug.
Those who are not adding in carbs can still perform very well, but at a very high competitive level, say nationals or something, adding in some carbs for explosive, short duration sports would most likely give a slight edge.
I've seen no evidence of this. Ben Greenfield was consuming carbs during a race while on his keto experiment and still bonked, which Attia apparently attributed to him being glycogen depleted at the beginning of the race and they planned adding in even more carbs: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2013/10/ketogenic-triathlete.html
Another example that is frequently used as evidence that you don't need carbs for ultra endurance similar does use them on a race, even one that (as noted) should be the most conducive to that is Tim Olson, and again he does fuel with carbs:
http://anthonycolpo.com/tim-olson-another-low-carb-athlete-that-never-was/
As he says: "There is no such thing as using 100% fat or 100% carbohydrate to fuel any activity, although there is a spectrum in which fat predominates at low exercise intensities while carbohydrate increasingly predominates as the intensity increases."
Above 75% of your VO max you aren't going to be burning fat, or at least not much at all.
The mix of carb vs fat burning definitely spikes then but you still burn fat and you start to convert protein to carbs as well. However, keto adapted people might have different reactions I'll have to do some more research on this because it is an interesting topic.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00260495150033400 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Micronutrients are found in foods that are not carb heavy too. Micronutrient intake is largely a non issue for any well planned diet regardless of the type including low carb, Zone, vegetarian.
Any well-planned diet, yes, but I've looked at plenty of super low carb diets here after the person in question promoted their specific diet to others, and they looked to be far short of some basic micros on a regular basis.And no, bonking is less of an issue for someone who is adapted to a ketogenic state. Extreme endurance athletes seem to benefit from very low carb diets for that very reason. Even if it was true that fat is a less efficient fuel, and it could be for those not yet keto adapted, it would be a non-issue for most low carb people including me.
Not true at all. Intense exercise can't be fueled without carbs, and if you look even at extreme endurance athletes who are promoted as low carb examples, they tend to eat lots of carbs when racing.
That isn't true. Intense exercise can be fueled without carbs. Carbs will provide some extra fuel though for those who need it during intense competition or training. Peter Attia MD refers to carbs as a performance enhancing drug.
Those who are not adding in carbs can still perform very well, but at a very high competitive level, say nationals or something, adding in some carbs for explosive, short duration sports would most likely give a slight edge.
I've seen no evidence of this. Ben Greenfield was consuming carbs during a race while on his keto experiment and still bonked, which Attia apparently attributed to him being glycogen depleted at the beginning of the race and they planned adding in even more carbs: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2013/10/ketogenic-triathlete.html
Another example that is frequently used as evidence that you don't need carbs for ultra endurance similar does use them on a race, even one that (as noted) should be the most conducive to that is Tim Olson, and again he does fuel with carbs:
http://anthonycolpo.com/tim-olson-another-low-carb-athlete-that-never-was/
As he says: "There is no such thing as using 100% fat or 100% carbohydrate to fuel any activity, although there is a spectrum in which fat predominates at low exercise intensities while carbohydrate increasingly predominates as the intensity increases."
Above 75% of your VO max you aren't going to be burning fat, or at least not much at all.
The mix of carb vs fat burning definitely spikes then but you still burn fat and you start to convert protein to carbs as well. However, keto adapted people might have different reactions I'll have to do some more research on this because it is an interesting topic.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049515003340
Thanks! I'll take a look.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
I remember a thread where someone said they did this and one other person said they do too.
I remember a thread where someone said they take 5 tablespoons of coconut oil in their morning coffee.
I remember a thread where someone said they ate more than half their diet in a macro that isn't even required nutritionally.
oh. I forget. Nevermind that.
If you function on a glucose fuel diet, you get your energy from carb calories. If you function on a fat fuel diet you get your energy from fat calories.
You seem to be implying coconut oil is not valid food and eating it is mock-worthy? I thought the official line is 'no bad foods'?
And it's not necessary to eat five times your fat minimum either but you always goes over that be too....
Hmm. There is is no minimum for carbohydrate consumption so that would put it at zero. If one is eating 40-50% of their calories in carbs... Well, that's more than five times over the minimum. Not necessary I guess?
Hmm.
There's maximum recommendations for protein and fat, I wonder what the rest of your calorie intake should consist of if you put them both at maximum and it's less than 100%.
That is not a requirement but just a recommendation by organizations whose guidelines don't work well for me (like ADA, Mayo, and AHA). I think their advice is quite outdated, along with advice to use egg substitutes instead of eggs, using low fat dairy, and substituting vegetable oils for saturated fats in cooking.
I honestly can't find any studies stating what a humans maximum fat intake should be. My guess is that it won't go higher than 90% but just because one would start to be lacking in protein.
If you have a study with the science that discovered the maximum fat intake for people, I would like to see it. It would be quite relevent to my diet.lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
I remember a thread where someone said they did this and one other person said they do too.
I remember a thread where someone said they take 5 tablespoons of coconut oil in their morning coffee.
I remember a thread where someone said they ate more than half their diet in a macro that isn't even required nutritionally.
oh. I forget. Nevermind that.
If you function on a glucose fuel diet, you get your energy from carb calories. If you function on a fat fuel diet you get your energy from fat calories.
You seem to be implying coconut oil is not valid food and eating it is mock-worthy? I thought the official line is 'no bad foods'?
And it's not necessary to eat five times your fat minimum either but you always goes over that be too....
Hmm. There is is no minimum for carbohydrate consumption so that would put it at zero. If one is eating 40-50% of their calories in carbs... Well, that's more than five times over the minimum. Not necessary I guess?
Most likely the majority of the carbs in a good diet will be providing micronutrients. It's also recommended to consume carbs if doing intense exercise. One can fuel oneself with fat, sure (in fact, we all use fat as fuel, you don't need to be doing a keto diet for that to be the case), but it's always less efficient so won't prevent you from bonking if exercising intensely beyond a certain period of time.
If memory serves, Gale claims to consume about 800 calories in coconut oil, which isn't providing much in the way of micros, just calories.
I doubt it it pertinent to the conversation to include specific people's dietary preferences when they are not participating in the thread.
Micronutrients are found in foods that are not carb heavy too. Micronutrient intake is largely a non issue for any well planned diet regardless of the type including low carb, Zone, vegetarian.
And no, bonking is less of an issue for someone who is adapted to a ketogenic state. Extreme endurance athletes seem to benefit from very low carb diets for that very reason. Even if it was true that fat is a less efficient fuel, and it could be for those not yet keto adapted, it would be a non-issue for most low carb people including me. I rarely do cardio or weights for more than an hour; occassionally I might be out hiking for hours but in that case I bring lunch.stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
I remember a thread where someone said they did this and one other person said they do too.
I remember a thread where someone said they take 5 tablespoons of coconut oil in their morning coffee.
I remember a thread where someone said they ate more than half their diet in a macro that isn't even required nutritionally.
oh. I forget. Nevermind that.
If you function on a glucose fuel diet, you get your energy from carb calories. If you function on a fat fuel diet you get your energy from fat calories.
You seem to be implying coconut oil is not valid food and eating it is mock-worthy? I thought the official line is 'no bad foods'?
And it's not necessary to eat five times your fat minimum either but you always goes over that be too....
Hmm. There is is no minimum for carbohydrate consumption so that would put it at zero. If one is eating 40-50% of their calories in carbs... Well, that's more than five times over the minimum. Not necessary I guess?
about as necessary as blowing at your fat minimum by 50%….
I just find it amusing that the keto/LC crew argues that carbs are not necessary, OK, maybe not, but it is not necessary to blow out your fat minimum by 50% either, but you all love to gloss over that point….
oh and see @stevencloser response….
I don't think I glossed over it. I must keep carbs very low to manage my insulin resistance. I must also keep protein moderate to manage said stubborn insulin resistance (as you know, protein raises insuli and BG too). What is left? Air? Breatharian lifestyle isn't going to cut it for me.
For me, it is "necessary to blow out fat minimum by 50%" or I'll be awfully hungry. I'm not sure why eating higher fat would be bothersome for you.
and why do you find people that eat high carb bothersome?
that last statement is pretty amusing given your opinion that half the population should be low carb….
Every person I know in life eats more carbs than me. Every single one. I only know of two other people who eat lower carb. In my part of the world, LCHF is a very small minority, and a ketogenic diet is a tiny minority.... That is probably partially why few athletes are doing it - few people are doing it at all.
I don't find a higher carb diet bothersome in the least, as long as I am not forced to do it. On the other hand, sure, qthere are characters who bother me on occasion, but they only manage a small, minor annoyance, and usually provide a laugh with their efforts.
Really, I'm not going to high carb threads to discus why I think that woe could be a bad idea unlike some higher carb people who for some reason frequent most low carb threads just to say it is a bad idea or they don't get why someone would eat that way.
Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't half the population try low carb? Would that be a bad thing in your opinion? Most of North America moved towards high carb and it was a fail. LCHF is safe, as safe as any diet, and could improve the health of some of those with insulin resistance, heart disease, some autoimmune diseases, and even some cancers. People should be free to try it. There are very very few people it could hurt.
If they gave it a month or two, how is that bad? It doesn't threaten higher carbers' way of life. If LCHF doesn't help, or they hate it, they can always move on to something else. Those who found something else that works already - great! Keep doing what they are doing.
Interensting that you mention that Keto is very rare, it probably is, but based on the number of people who seem to be on some version of LCHF here I would have assumed that it's more popular.
Note on the failure of high carb, actually, low carb hasn't been any more successful since both high and low carb diets work but people can't tend to stay on either. Those who are on high carb tend to add in fats and those on low carb tend to add in carbs, and then eventually they end up back to old eating habits..
I think the amount of people who eat keto is higher around here. They seem to be the type who like to research diets, health and nutrition and most who start keto are looking for information and experienced people before they start. Quite a few who go low carb (below 100-150g of carbs per day) don't even realize they are low carb and don't identify with that group. For example, paleo is often lower carb but that is not it's objective. I have seen people with low carb diets but they identify more strongly with other groups like moderation, vegetarianism, IIFYM, South Beach, Dukan or Mediterranean diet.
Those on a low carb diet who identify themselves as low carb people are often those with health problems improved by low carb like insulin resistance, autoimmune diseases, heart disease, kidney disease, or cognitive problems, or they have issues with moderating sugars and carbs. Ie, they know carbs are a problem for them.
I didn't write that well about the high carb fail. I was thinking in terms of how the governments have steered people towards higher carb and low fat foods. The goal was 50-60% carbs. So many packaged goods advertise low fat products, switching saturated fats for vegetable oils, or eating more "healthy whole grains". These changes don't seem to have helped society as a whole.
But yes, fat consumption has gone up somewhat too. In the end many were worse off than they would have been if they ate the same as people did 100 years ago.0 -
Heck no I'm not trying ketogenics or low carb. My doctor does not consider it healthy, and I have conditions that have to be managed. I can't just run around trying everything someone on a fitness board likes. I am supposed to eat moderate carb, and follow some other guidelines meant to keep blood sugar stable.0
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
I remember a thread where someone said they did this and one other person said they do too.
I remember a thread where someone said they take 5 tablespoons of coconut oil in their morning coffee.
I remember a thread where someone said they ate more than half their diet in a macro that isn't even required nutritionally.
oh. I forget. Nevermind that.
If you function on a glucose fuel diet, you get your energy from carb calories. If you function on a fat fuel diet you get your energy from fat calories.
You seem to be implying coconut oil is not valid food and eating it is mock-worthy? I thought the official line is 'no bad foods'?
And it's not necessary to eat five times your fat minimum either but you always goes over that be too....
Hmm. There is is no minimum for carbohydrate consumption so that would put it at zero. If one is eating 40-50% of their calories in carbs... Well, that's more than five times over the minimum. Not necessary I guess?
Hmm.
There's maximum recommendations for protein and fat, I wonder what the rest of your calorie intake should consist of if you put them both at maximum and it's less than 100%.
That is not a requirement but just a recommendation by organizations whose guidelines don't work well for me (like ADA, Mayo, and AHA). I think their advice is quite outdated, along with advice to use egg substitutes instead of eggs, using low fat dairy, and substituting vegetable oils for saturated fats in cooking.
I honestly can't find any studies stating what a humans maximum fat intake should be. My guess is that it won't go higher than 90% but just because one would start to be lacking in protein.
If you have a study with the science that discovered the maximum fat intake for people, I would like to see it. It would be quite relevent to my diet.lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
I remember a thread where someone said they did this and one other person said they do too.
I remember a thread where someone said they take 5 tablespoons of coconut oil in their morning coffee.
I remember a thread where someone said they ate more than half their diet in a macro that isn't even required nutritionally.
oh. I forget. Nevermind that.
If you function on a glucose fuel diet, you get your energy from carb calories. If you function on a fat fuel diet you get your energy from fat calories.
You seem to be implying coconut oil is not valid food and eating it is mock-worthy? I thought the official line is 'no bad foods'?
And it's not necessary to eat five times your fat minimum either but you always goes over that be too....
Hmm. There is is no minimum for carbohydrate consumption so that would put it at zero. If one is eating 40-50% of their calories in carbs... Well, that's more than five times over the minimum. Not necessary I guess?
Most likely the majority of the carbs in a good diet will be providing micronutrients. It's also recommended to consume carbs if doing intense exercise. One can fuel oneself with fat, sure (in fact, we all use fat as fuel, you don't need to be doing a keto diet for that to be the case), but it's always less efficient so won't prevent you from bonking if exercising intensely beyond a certain period of time.
If memory serves, Gale claims to consume about 800 calories in coconut oil, which isn't providing much in the way of micros, just calories.
I doubt it it pertinent to the conversation to include specific people's dietary preferences when they are not participating in the thread.
Micronutrients are found in foods that are not carb heavy too. Micronutrient intake is largely a non issue for any well planned diet regardless of the type including low carb, Zone, vegetarian.
And no, bonking is less of an issue for someone who is adapted to a ketogenic state. Extreme endurance athletes seem to benefit from very low carb diets for that very reason. Even if it was true that fat is a less efficient fuel, and it could be for those not yet keto adapted, it would be a non-issue for most low carb people including me. I rarely do cardio or weights for more than an hour; occassionally I might be out hiking for hours but in that case I bring lunch.stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
I remember a thread where someone said they did this and one other person said they do too.
I remember a thread where someone said they take 5 tablespoons of coconut oil in their morning coffee.
I remember a thread where someone said they ate more than half their diet in a macro that isn't even required nutritionally.
oh. I forget. Nevermind that.
If you function on a glucose fuel diet, you get your energy from carb calories. If you function on a fat fuel diet you get your energy from fat calories.
You seem to be implying coconut oil is not valid food and eating it is mock-worthy? I thought the official line is 'no bad foods'?
And it's not necessary to eat five times your fat minimum either but you always goes over that be too....
Hmm. There is is no minimum for carbohydrate consumption so that would put it at zero. If one is eating 40-50% of their calories in carbs... Well, that's more than five times over the minimum. Not necessary I guess?
about as necessary as blowing at your fat minimum by 50%….
I just find it amusing that the keto/LC crew argues that carbs are not necessary, OK, maybe not, but it is not necessary to blow out your fat minimum by 50% either, but you all love to gloss over that point….
oh and see @stevencloser response….
I don't think I glossed over it. I must keep carbs very low to manage my insulin resistance. I must also keep protein moderate to manage said stubborn insulin resistance (as you know, protein raises insuli and BG too). What is left? Air? Breatharian lifestyle isn't going to cut it for me.
For me, it is "necessary to blow out fat minimum by 50%" or I'll be awfully hungry. I'm not sure why eating higher fat would be bothersome for you.
and why do you find people that eat high carb bothersome?
that last statement is pretty amusing given your opinion that half the population should be low carb….
Every person I know in life eats more carbs than me. Every single one. I only know of two other people who eat lower carb. In my part of the world, LCHF is a very small minority, and a ketogenic diet is a tiny minority.... That is probably partially why few athletes are doing it - few people are doing it at all.
I don't find a higher carb diet bothersome in the least, as long as I am not forced to do it. On the other hand, sure, qthere are characters who bother me on occasion, but they only manage a small, minor annoyance, and usually provide a laugh with their efforts.
Really, I'm not going to high carb threads to discus why I think that woe could be a bad idea unlike some higher carb people who for some reason frequent most low carb threads just to say it is a bad idea or they don't get why someone would eat that way.
Just to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't half the population try low carb? Would that be a bad thing in your opinion? Most of North America moved towards high carb and it was a fail. LCHF is safe, as safe as any diet, and could improve the health of some of those with insulin resistance, heart disease, some autoimmune diseases, and even some cancers. People should be free to try it. There are very very few people it could hurt.
If they gave it a month or two, how is that bad? It doesn't threaten higher carbers' way of life. If LCHF doesn't help, or they hate it, they can always move on to something else. Those who found something else that works already - great! Keep doing what they are doing.
Interensting that you mention that Keto is very rare, it probably is, but based on the number of people who seem to be on some version of LCHF here I would have assumed that it's more popular.
Note on the failure of high carb, actually, low carb hasn't been any more successful since both high and low carb diets work but people can't tend to stay on either. Those who are on high carb tend to add in fats and those on low carb tend to add in carbs, and then eventually they end up back to old eating habits..
I think the amount of people who eat keto is higher around here. They seem to be the type who like to research diets, health and nutrition and most who start keto are looking for information and experienced people before they start. Quite a few who go low carb (below 100-150g of carbs per day) don't even realize they are low carb and don't identify with that group. For example, paleo is often lower carb but that is not it's objective. I have seen people with low carb diets but they identify more strongly with other groups like moderation, vegetarianism, IIFYM, South Beach, Dukan or Mediterranean diet.
Those on a low carb diet who identify themselves as low carb people are often those with health problems improved by low carb like insulin resistance, autoimmune diseases, heart disease, kidney disease, or cognitive problems, or they have issues with moderating sugars and carbs. Ie, they know carbs are a problem for them.
I didn't write that well about the high carb fail. I was thinking in terms of how the governments have steered people towards higher carb and low fat foods. The goal was 50-60% carbs. So many packaged goods advertise low fat products, switching saturated fats for vegetable oils, or eating more "healthy whole grains". These changes don't seem to have helped society as a whole.
But yes, fat consumption has gone up somewhat too. In the end many were worse off than they would have been if they ate the same as people did 100 years ago.
What the government recommended and what people in society implemented are completely different things. The government recommends 5-9 servings of veggies, several servings of fruit, whole grains, lean meats and at least 30 minutes of exercise 3-6x a week. And as a society, we missed that mark by a thousand miles. Diets are low in veggies, high in processed foods, tons of saturate fats, and NO exercise. If we actually followed the govt' recommendations, there might be potential to have less obesity.
0 -
I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
I am saying there is nothing magical about it and it is not superior to any other WOE.
and please provide citation for your claim...
my blood panels come back perfect every year and I get about 50% of my calories from carbs....
0 -
toad_allyinlove wrote: »Low carb is it fact or fiction? Fad or good? What do you guys think? Pro's or con's?
Didn't get to read through the entire thread but low car is definitely the way to go, so long as you're getting the proper amount of protein. If your low carb diet is tied in with a weight-lifting regime or cardio then it actually isn't too low carb at all! With the amount I exercise I do I'm able to eat 190 grams of carbs a day and still consider it low carb! Carbs provide energy so although your energy levels will decrease, your fat loss will increase exponentially. Set a goal, find your micronutrients, and give it your best shot!0 -
I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
I am saying there is nothing magical about it and it is not superior to any other WOE.
and please provide citation for your claim...
my blood panels come back perfect every year and I get about 50% of my calories from carbs....
Do you believe it's inferior to other WOEs?0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
I am saying there is nothing magical about it and it is not superior to any other WOE.
and please provide citation for your claim...
my blood panels come back perfect every year and I get about 50% of my calories from carbs....
Do you believe it's inferior to other WOEs?
no0 -
toad_allyinlove wrote: »Low carb is it fact or fiction? Fad or good? What do you guys think? Pro's or con's?
Didn't get to read through the entire thread but low car is definitely the way to go, so long as you're getting the proper amount of protein. If your low carb diet is tied in with a weight-lifting regime or cardio then it actually isn't too low carb at all! With the amount I exercise I do I'm able to eat 190 grams of carbs a day and still consider it low carb! Carbs provide energy so although your energy levels will decrease, your fat loss will increase exponentially. Set a goal, find your micronutrients, and give it your best shot!
are you saying that your exercise burns negate the carbs that you consume? If yes, that is a new argument...0 -
toad_allyinlove wrote: »Low carb is it fact or fiction? Fad or good? What do you guys think? Pro's or con's?
Didn't get to read through the entire thread but low car is definitely the way to go, so long as you're getting the proper amount of protein. If your low carb diet is tied in with a weight-lifting regime or cardio then it actually isn't too low carb at all! With the amount I exercise I do I'm able to eat 190 grams of carbs a day and still consider it low carb! Carbs provide energy so although your energy levels will decrease, your fat loss will increase exponentially. Set a goal, find your micronutrients, and give it your best shot!
are you saying that your exercise burns negate the carbs that you consume? If yes, that is a new argument...
Who would have thought there would a new twist.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »toad_allyinlove wrote: »Low carb is it fact or fiction? Fad or good? What do you guys think? Pro's or con's?
Didn't get to read through the entire thread but low car is definitely the way to go, so long as you're getting the proper amount of protein. If your low carb diet is tied in with a weight-lifting regime or cardio then it actually isn't too low carb at all! With the amount I exercise I do I'm able to eat 190 grams of carbs a day and still consider it low carb! Carbs provide energy so although your energy levels will decrease, your fat loss will increase exponentially. Set a goal, find your micronutrients, and give it your best shot!
are you saying that your exercise burns negate the carbs that you consume? If yes, that is a new argument...
Who would have thought there would a new twist.
welcome to MFP ....1 -
toad_allyinlove wrote: »Low carb is it fact or fiction? Fad or good? What do you guys think? Pro's or con's?
Didn't get to read through the entire thread but low car is definitely the way to go, so long as you're getting the proper amount of protein. If your low carb diet is tied in with a weight-lifting regime or cardio then it actually isn't too low carb at all! With the amount I exercise I do I'm able to eat 190 grams of carbs a day and still consider it low carb! Carbs provide energy so although your energy levels will decrease, your fat loss will increase exponentially. Set a goal, find your micronutrients, and give it your best shot!
I would disagree. Fat loss is not greater on a low carb diet. In fact, calorie for calories (where protein is maintained), a low fat diet will yield greater results.
0 -
One of the newer episodes of the Joe Rogan podcast features Mark Sisson of the Primal Blueprint: bit.ly/1nxWbCB
He's definitely one of the healthiest looking 60+ year olds I've ever seen. Former Iron Man triathlete and has a ton of books on nutrition for both performance and life in general. He champions LC and fat adaptation, and has maintained an average of 100g of carbs a day for 15 years. Talks about specific benefits of low carb as a method of reducing inflammation caused by refined grains and sugars. It's N=1, but interesting, and seemingly topical here.0 -
Really. I wouldn't have thought that given the energy you expend on low carb posts. Cheers mate.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
I am saying there is nothing magical about it and it is not superior to any other WOE.
and please provide citation for your claim...
my blood panels come back perfect every year and I get about 50% of my calories from carbs....
Do you believe it's inferior to other WOEs?
no
0 -
One of the newer episodes of the Joe Rogan podcast features Mark Sisson of the Primal Blueprint: bit.ly/1nxWbCB
He's definitely one of the healthiest looking 60+ year olds I've ever seen. Former Iron Man triathlete and has a ton of books on nutrition for both performance and life in general. He champions LC and fat adaptation, and has maintained an average of 100g of carbs a day for 15 years. Talks about specific benefits of low carb as a method of reducing inflammation caused by refined grains and sugars. It's N=1, but interesting, and seemingly topical here.
Are you sure you are looking at recent pictures? He didn't look all that great in some of the ones I've seen.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »One of the newer episodes of the Joe Rogan podcast features Mark Sisson of the Primal Blueprint: bit.ly/1nxWbCB
He's definitely one of the healthiest looking 60+ year olds I've ever seen. Former Iron Man triathlete and has a ton of books on nutrition for both performance and life in general. He champions LC and fat adaptation, and has maintained an average of 100g of carbs a day for 15 years. Talks about specific benefits of low carb as a method of reducing inflammation caused by refined grains and sugars. It's N=1, but interesting, and seemingly topical here.
Are you sure you are looking at recent pictures? He didn't look all that great in some of the ones I've seen.
Actually I was referring to the video I linked to. The one that was recorded last week.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »One of the newer episodes of the Joe Rogan podcast features Mark Sisson of the Primal Blueprint: bit.ly/1nxWbCB
He's definitely one of the healthiest looking 60+ year olds I've ever seen. Former Iron Man triathlete and has a ton of books on nutrition for both performance and life in general. He champions LC and fat adaptation, and has maintained an average of 100g of carbs a day for 15 years. Talks about specific benefits of low carb as a method of reducing inflammation caused by refined grains and sugars. It's N=1, but interesting, and seemingly topical here.
Are you sure you are looking at recent pictures? He didn't look all that great in some of the ones I've seen.
Actually I was referring to the video I linked to. The one that was recorded last week.
Interesting, I'll have to look it up. I also remember a time where he was anti-running as well but he seems to have gone back to that again.
ETA but the way he looks has far more to do with the fact that he has maintained his fitness levels quite well rather than the diet.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Really. I wouldn't have thought that given the energy you expend on low carb posts. Cheers mate.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I have never said, nor have I seen, anyone say that LCHF is not a WOE that one can choose to utilize as a weight loss strategy. However, what we are saying is that LCHF will not make you lose weight faster, is not healthier, and is not some magical cure all for every known disease known to man.
To your last point, LCHF is totally unnecessary for weight loss or health, and people can achieve the same affects through diet, exercise, and hitting their micros and macros, without LCHF.
So it's just a semantics game where appearing in any discussion of low carbing to say it is "totally unnecessary" is somehow OK as long as you don't say "it isn't a WOE that one can choose".
You won't get the triglyceride / HDL ratio of LCHF on high carbs, to name but one, so your health claims are dubious at best.
I am saying there is nothing magical about it and it is not superior to any other WOE.
and please provide citation for your claim...
my blood panels come back perfect every year and I get about 50% of my calories from carbs....
Do you believe it's inferior to other WOEs?
no
I think it is fine for a WOE for some...my main contention is that it is not superior, more healthy, and that carbs, by themselves, are not bad/unhealthy.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »One of the newer episodes of the Joe Rogan podcast features Mark Sisson of the Primal Blueprint: bit.ly/1nxWbCB
He's definitely one of the healthiest looking 60+ year olds I've ever seen. Former Iron Man triathlete and has a ton of books on nutrition for both performance and life in general. He champions LC and fat adaptation, and has maintained an average of 100g of carbs a day for 15 years. Talks about specific benefits of low carb as a method of reducing inflammation caused by refined grains and sugars. It's N=1, but interesting, and seemingly topical here.
Are you sure you are looking at recent pictures? He didn't look all that great in some of the ones I've seen.
Actually I was referring to the video I linked to. The one that was recorded last week.
Interesting, I'll have to look it up. I also remember a time where he was anti-running as well but he seems to have gone back to that again.
ETA but the way he looks has far more to do with the fact that he has maintained his fitness levels quite well rather than the diet.
Exactly. I find low carb health claims similar to vegan health claims, or to paleo, or any diet that tries to paint itself as superior and healthier. Can you be healthy with a low carb diet? Yes. Paleo? Yes. Vegan? Yes. The eat whatever you want while focusing on nutrients diet? Yes. Being able to achieve health does not prove the superiority of one diet over another as a general rule. One diet can be superior to another on a personal level given varying preferences, but you can't generalize that rule.
Older people who have taken good care of themselves is also not a good proof of the superiority of any particular diet. You think Mark Sisson looks good? Take a look at a raw vegan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6oJA_xhTa8
and this Punjabi Indian (lots of wheat and rice) who ran a marathon at 101
http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/25/worlds-oldest-marathoner/1946619/1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »One of the newer episodes of the Joe Rogan podcast features Mark Sisson of the Primal Blueprint: bit.ly/1nxWbCB
He's definitely one of the healthiest looking 60+ year olds I've ever seen. Former Iron Man triathlete and has a ton of books on nutrition for both performance and life in general. He champions LC and fat adaptation, and has maintained an average of 100g of carbs a day for 15 years. Talks about specific benefits of low carb as a method of reducing inflammation caused by refined grains and sugars. It's N=1, but interesting, and seemingly topical here.
Are you sure you are looking at recent pictures? He didn't look all that great in some of the ones I've seen.
Actually I was referring to the video I linked to. The one that was recorded last week.
Interesting, I'll have to look it up. I also remember a time where he was anti-running as well but he seems to have gone back to that again.
ETA but the way he looks has far more to do with the fact that he has maintained his fitness levels quite well rather than the diet.
Exactly. I find low carb health claims similar to vegan health claims, or to paleo, or any diet that tries to paint itself as superior and healthier. Can you be healthy with a low carb diet? Yes. Paleo? Yes. Vegan? Yes. The eat whatever you want while focusing on nutrients diet? Yes. Being able to achieve health does not prove the superiority of one diet over another as a general rule. One diet can be superior to another on a personal level given varying preferences, but you can't generalize that rule.
Older people who have taken good care of themselves is also not a good proof of the superiority of any particular diet. You think Mark Sisson looks good? Take a look at a raw veganhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6oJA_xhTa8
and this Punjabi Indian (lots of wheat and rice) who ran a marathon at 101
http://www.usatoday.com/story/gameon/2013/02/25/worlds-oldest-marathoner/1946619/
As another example: I have a video of an 86 year old deadlifting 450 pounds at 150 pounds body weight and he looks like he's in his mid 60's. He can outlift a lot of young guys his weight and as far as I know isn't on a special diet.1 -
It is completely broscience. The only thing you are doing is cutting your calories, but carbs are not bad for you and substituting a low carb/high fat diet for a balanced diet is not the best healthy way to do it.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions