Low carb... Is it a diet fad?
Options
Replies
-
robertw486 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Please provide a lis of these unhealthy foods and explain why they are unhealthy?
There are no unhealthy foods, just unhealthy diets….
I don't go backwards for selective readers, but I will answer this...A triple whopper at burger king has 75 grams of fat, 27 saturated. Not good for the body even if you eat healthy the rest of the day and cut back on fat.
roast turkey ranch and bacon sandwich at arby's 2300 grams of sodium... only 800 calories so you'd still have to eat more that day.
Candies - don't know if u need a list of the ones that are pure sugar and artificial colors with no nutritional value.
movie theatre popcorn and soda - hopefully I don't need to explain this one.
restaurant chicken alfredo, fried chicken, pizza loaded with processed pork, high sodium tv dinners...
how many were you asking for?
All heart attacks on a plate
Apparently not lol. I need to learn that they're all healthy.
As everyone else has said....it depends on the context. I bolded it and underlined it for you so hopefully you see it this time.
Treating yourself to one once or twice a year, or on a day where you're super short on calories and/or your fat macro, they can fit just fine into your diet.
No one is suggesting they should be a daily staple of your diet. Then again, I wouldn't want any one single food to be a daily staple of my diet.
Not really. The question was unhealthy foods not foods you could never eat in all your life. It's still unhealthy even if it's manageable. That was the question, unhealthy foods. You don't have to find a way to fit spinach and kale into your diet once or twice a year. You don't have to squeeze in water into your macros. You don't have to manage the rest of your day after you indulge in a can of tuna. I don't even know why someone insinuating they DON'T have a lot to learn would be pushing these foods but as I said if you find them healthy, have at it.
I have to make every food fit. All of them. It's a balancing act.
5000 grams of sodium isn't for everyone. Do u just eat 2 Arby's sandwiches a day since they're that healthy? is that your meal plan?
Maybe when you aren't so defensive, you can come back and read a little bit about what people wrote and try to absorb it. At this point the debate is pointless as you don't seem to understand the basic premise of the discussion.
I just answer the questions presented. I saw the greater context in what I originally replied to. If people don't want the answers they shouldn't ask. I don't even give credence to those foods being part of a debate it's absurd. I'm not the defensive one. I'm perfectly fine cutting back on those foods and labeling them as unhealthy. If you want to tell people they are healthy if you have them occasionally or if you work them in, tell people that and they will make the choices they make. I'm not the one with a position to defend. I stopped arguing, then answered a new question, and I'm going to stop arguing now. Like I said, eat your Arby's and your alfredo and your candy whenever it fits into your life and your plan. It's your body after all.
It's not at all uncommon here. In the context of what you actually said, I pretty much agree with you. Certain foods are much easier to fit into a healthy balanced diet, while others are not.
The hair splitting usually keeps up if anyone suggests a diet that includes anything not carb heavy, but personally I've yet to see anyone give any examples that would disprove low carb or your example of healthier choices being lesser capable diet or a disadvantage to anyone. It's just how these forums roll.
There are several situations where low-carbs are sub optimal. Some of these have been covered in the thread.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
True.
And I don't know any proponents of moderation who eats 2 triple whoppers per day, nothing but twinkies, or 100% carbs as many low-carb/keto folk seem to like to imply.
Seems that ridiculous hyperbole is not a good tool to discredit someone.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
True.
And I don't know any proponents of moderation who eats 2 triple whoppers per day, nothing but twinkies, or 100% carbs as many low-carb/keto folk seem to like to imply.
Seems that ridiculous hyperbole is not a good tool to discredit someone.
Agreed
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Please provide a lis of these unhealthy foods and explain why they are unhealthy?
There are no unhealthy foods, just unhealthy diets….
I don't go backwards for selective readers, but I will answer this...A triple whopper at burger king has 75 grams of fat, 27 saturated. Not good for the body even if you eat healthy the rest of the day and cut back on fat.
roast turkey ranch and bacon sandwich at arby's 2300 grams of sodium... only 800 calories so you'd still have to eat more that day.
Candies - don't know if u need a list of the ones that are pure sugar and artificial colors with no nutritional value.
movie theatre popcorn and soda - hopefully I don't need to explain this one.
restaurant chicken alfredo, fried chicken, pizza loaded with processed pork, high sodium tv dinners...
how many were you asking for?
All heart attacks on a plate
Apparently not lol. I need to learn that they're all healthy.
As everyone else has said....it depends on the context. I bolded it and underlined it for you so hopefully you see it this time.
Treating yourself to one once or twice a year, or on a day where you're super short on calories and/or your fat macro, they can fit just fine into your diet.
No one is suggesting they should be a daily staple of your diet. Then again, I wouldn't want any one single food to be a daily staple of my diet.
Not really. The question was unhealthy foods not foods you could never eat in all your life. It's still unhealthy even if it's manageable. That was the question, unhealthy foods. You don't have to find a way to fit spinach and kale into your diet once or twice a year. You don't have to squeeze in water into your macros. You don't have to manage the rest of your day after you indulge in a can of tuna. I don't even know why someone insinuating they DON'T have a lot to learn would be pushing these foods but as I said if you find them healthy, have at it.
I have to make every food fit. All of them. It's a balancing act.
5000 grams of sodium isn't for everyone. Do u just eat 2 Arby's sandwiches a day since they're that healthy? is that your meal plan?
Maybe when you aren't so defensive, you can come back and read a little bit about what people wrote and try to absorb it. At this point the debate is pointless as you don't seem to understand the basic premise of the discussion.
I just answer the questions presented. I saw the greater context in what I originally replied to. If people don't want the answers they shouldn't ask. I don't even give credence to those foods being part of a debate it's absurd. I'm not the defensive one. I'm perfectly fine cutting back on those foods and labeling them as unhealthy. If you want to tell people they are healthy if you have them occasionally or if you work them in, tell people that and they will make the choices they make. I'm not the one with a position to defend. I stopped arguing, then answered a new question, and I'm going to stop arguing now. Like I said, eat your Arby's and your alfredo and your candy whenever it fits into your life and your plan. It's your body after all.
It's not at all uncommon here. In the context of what you actually said, I pretty much agree with you. Certain foods are much easier to fit into a healthy balanced diet, while others are not.
The hair splitting usually keeps up if anyone suggests a diet that includes anything not carb heavy, but personally I've yet to see anyone give any examples that would disprove low carb or your example of healthier choices being lesser capable diet or a disadvantage to anyone. It's just how these forums roll.
There are several situations where low-carbs are sub optimal. Some of these have been covered in the thread.
Though I agree for most people that would probably be true, as with any other way of eating there are exceptions. To be honest, getting people on a thread like this to even agree where the "low carb" threshold is could take 20 pages probably.
I'd think that the situations where low carb is less than optimal would most likely relate to situations out of the usual, where specific medical conditions apply. If not, I've not seen anything in this thread that I would consider solid evidence.
And I have no intention of doing low carb myself, I just think the bias seems to be against the "ordinary" more usual macros that most use and accept.0 -
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.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
True.
And I don't know any proponents of moderation who eats 2 triple whoppers per day, nothing but twinkies, or 100% carbs as many low-carb/keto folk seem to like to imply.
Seems that ridiculous hyperbole is not a good tool to discredit someone.
Probably not. But some of them do profess moderation as being applied to all kinds of things I think are rather radical myself, like insane protein levels and eating vegetarian.
It's the extreme examples that mess up these threads sometimes, but really I see the extremes being tossed in from a lot of angles often.0 -
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.
A whole stick? maybe a stick of butter means something different here?? 200-250g equals a stick of butter.
0 -
-
Wetcoaster wrote: »Lighten up people......
its all fun
If you ate more sticks of butter your sense of humor and moods would improve, especially if you combined it with super low carbs. It's true, I read it on the internet!0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »Lighten up people...... its all fun
If you ate more sticks of butter your sense of humor and moods would improve, especially if you combined it with super low carbs. It's true, I read it on the internet!
For the win!0 -
robertw486 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
True.
And I don't know any proponents of moderation who eats 2 triple whoppers per day, nothing but twinkies, or 100% carbs as many low-carb/keto folk seem to like to imply.
Seems that ridiculous hyperbole is not a good tool to discredit someone.
Probably not. But some of them do profess moderation as being applied to all kinds of things I think are rather radical myself, like insane protein levels and eating vegetarian.
It's the extreme examples that mess up these threads sometimes, but really I see the extremes being tossed in from a lot of angles often.
The people who discuss extremes are those who follow restricrice diets, whether its low carb or vegans. I have seen everything from cures for all kinds of medical issues to meat rotting your insides. And then when examples are discussed its always a whole diet of broccoli vs doughnuts.
The fact is, if people would look at a diet in the context of its entirety and no make crazy claims these threads would be a lot shorter and people would be more receptive.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Please provide a lis of these unhealthy foods and explain why they are unhealthy?
There are no unhealthy foods, just unhealthy diets….
I don't go backwards for selective readers, but I will answer this...A triple whopper at burger king has 75 grams of fat, 27 saturated. Not good for the body even if you eat healthy the rest of the day and cut back on fat.
roast turkey ranch and bacon sandwich at arby's 2300 grams of sodium... only 800 calories so you'd still have to eat more that day.
Candies - don't know if u need a list of the ones that are pure sugar and artificial colors with no nutritional value.
movie theatre popcorn and soda - hopefully I don't need to explain this one.
restaurant chicken alfredo, fried chicken, pizza loaded with processed pork, high sodium tv dinners...
how many were you asking for?
All heart attacks on a plate
Apparently not lol. I need to learn that they're all healthy.
As everyone else has said....it depends on the context. I bolded it and underlined it for you so hopefully you see it this time.
Treating yourself to one once or twice a year, or on a day where you're super short on calories and/or your fat macro, they can fit just fine into your diet.
No one is suggesting they should be a daily staple of your diet. Then again, I wouldn't want any one single food to be a daily staple of my diet.
Not really. The question was unhealthy foods not foods you could never eat in all your life. It's still unhealthy even if it's manageable. That was the question, unhealthy foods. You don't have to find a way to fit spinach and kale into your diet once or twice a year. You don't have to squeeze in water into your macros. You don't have to manage the rest of your day after you indulge in a can of tuna. I don't even know why someone insinuating they DON'T have a lot to learn would be pushing these foods but as I said if you find them healthy, have at it.
I have to make every food fit. All of them. It's a balancing act.
5000 grams of sodium isn't for everyone. Do u just eat 2 Arby's sandwiches a day since they're that healthy? is that your meal plan?
Maybe when you aren't so defensive, you can come back and read a little bit about what people wrote and try to absorb it. At this point the debate is pointless as you don't seem to understand the basic premise of the discussion.
I just answer the questions presented. I saw the greater context in what I originally replied to. If people don't want the answers they shouldn't ask. I don't even give credence to those foods being part of a debate it's absurd. I'm not the defensive one. I'm perfectly fine cutting back on those foods and labeling them as unhealthy. If you want to tell people they are healthy if you have them occasionally or if you work them in, tell people that and they will make the choices they make. I'm not the one with a position to defend. I stopped arguing, then answered a new question, and I'm going to stop arguing now. Like I said, eat your Arby's and your alfredo and your candy whenever it fits into your life and your plan. It's your body after all.
It's not at all uncommon here. In the context of what you actually said, I pretty much agree with you. Certain foods are much easier to fit into a healthy balanced diet, while others are not.
Yes, of course, although that depends on context too. When I was doing 1250 and wasn't yet that active, things were a lot harder to fit in than before I decided to eat at maintenance and train for a marathon.
I think the main argument, which people seem to refuse to understand, has to do with the definition of "unhealthy." Some of us see "unhealthy" as meaning "actively bad for you, should not be in my diet at all." Others seem to understand "unhealthy" to mean "low in nutrients and high in calories or hard to fit in if I'm on a deficit or even -- weirdly, as this would make most everything unhealthy -- "something I should not eat as the only food in my diet."
My impression is that those quick to call tough to fit in foods "unhealthy" or jump to weird strawmen like only eating McD's or TV dinners with lots of sodium are perhaps those who were eating diets made up largely of such foods before. Whereas those of us talking about context find it hard to believe that anyone would eat such a limited or overall unhealthy diet but certainly understand exceeding calories.
Also, I'm not sure the relevance of this to the low carb vs. not debate, as jozzmenia's examples seem to agree with my point that low carb is not inherently healthier (as it is often high in sodium and sat fat) and both low and non low carb can be equally healthy or not.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
I think this is the Jimmie Moore diet. Bigtime low carb evangelist.0 -
Christine_72 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.
A whole stick? maybe a stick of butter means something different here?? 200-250g equals a stick of butter.
Stick of butter USA style = 114g or about 800c.
Must have been an athlete. Maybe the fat burners equivalent to eating those sugar gel packs?0 -
Please provide a lis of these unhealthy foods and explain why they are unhealthy?
There are no unhealthy foods, just unhealthy diets….
I don't go backwards for selective readers, but I will answer this...A triple whopper at burger king has 75 grams of fat, 27 saturated. Not good for the body even if you eat healthy the rest of the day and cut back on fat.
roast turkey ranch and bacon sandwich at arby's 2300 grams of sodium... only 800 calories so you'd still have to eat more that day.
Candies - don't know if u need a list of the ones that are pure sugar and artificial colors with no nutritional value.
movie theatre popcorn and soda - hopefully I don't need to explain this one.
restaurant chicken alfredo, fried chicken, pizza loaded with processed pork, high sodium tv dinners...
how many were you asking for?
What makes you think fat is unhealthy?0 -
Christine_72 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.
A whole stick? maybe a stick of butter means something different here?? 200-250g equals a stick of butter.
Stick of butter USA style = 114g or about 800c.
Must have been an athlete. Maybe the fat burners equivalent to eating those sugar gel packs?
Not athletes, no. A young girl who said she struggles getting in enough calories through normal food so she eats straight butter, and someone I've been suspecting is a troll but hasn't been apprehended.0 -
Hear, hear.robertw486 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't know anyone who eats a stick of butter... My max is 15grams
True.
And I don't know any proponents of moderation who eats 2 triple whoppers per day, nothing but twinkies, or 100% carbs as many low-carb/keto folk seem to like to imply.
Seems that ridiculous hyperbole is not a good tool to discredit someone.
Probably not. But some of them do profess moderation as being applied to all kinds of things I think are rather radical myself, like insane protein levels and eating vegetarian.
It's the extreme examples that mess up these threads sometimes, but really I see the extremes being tossed in from a lot of angles often.
The people who discuss extremes are those who follow restricrice diets, whether its low carb or vegans. I have seen everything from cures for all kinds of medical issues to meat rotting your insides. And then when examples are discussed its always a whole diet of broccoli vs doughnuts.
The fact is, if people would look at a diet in the context of its entirety and no make crazy claims these threads would be a lot shorter and people would be more receptive.
0 -
Being a trainer/coach, no two people are the same. None of my clients are doing the same training routine or nutrition plan. What works for one individual may not work for the other. We have to take into account what our goals are.
Gaining lean muscle tissue, gain mass and weight, dropping body fat, maintaining current weight, are you focused on your strength goals or more so appearance??
Change will be made if you have medical issues also, going through more mobility and functional training as a rehabilitation. Are you an athlete looking to improve performance?
Lot of factors come into play. I see and talk to so many people daily about nutrition. I find a lot of the time, they are doing a nutrition plan that is aimed toward opposite of their current fitness goal. Conflicting goals will hinder results. Have to see what works best for you to get you to your goals efficiently and maintain long term.0 -
A balanced approach to dieting that focuses on hitting macros and micros that are also balanced and within calorie needs will achieve 99.9 percent of people's goals.0
-
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions