High vs. Low carbs
Replies
-
PlantBasedKnight wrote: »@Wetcoaster I agree. and I will clarify what I meant by carbs:
Carbs when I mention them are:
whole Fruits (not only juice or canned)
whole Vegetables (raw or steamed or lightly cooked)
whole Root vegetables (steamed or boiled) ****
Squashes (steamed boiled or roasted)
Whole grains (wheat, rice, corn, barley, oats etc..) boiled, or made into a dough. minimally processed ****
whole Legumes (cooked steamed or roasted)
non of the above should be prepared fried, with oil/butter, or any type of fat on earth.
**** This does not include in any case the following: chips, crisps, white flour products, supermarket cakes and cookies and biscuits as they are actually fats not carbs, pretzels and processed junk alike.
That God you're here man. Some people on MFP forums preach HFLC and have no idea what they're doing to themselves and their bodies. Many ppl associate carbs with ice cream, cookies, chips, and oils. You and I, as HCLF, put those foods in the fat category, not carbs. You're a blessing to see in this forum my friend, so many ppl are uniformed.0 -
Also, wtf are we defining as "low carb". 40% daily cals? 20% daily cals? 5% daily cals? 100g a day? 50g? 20g?
I eat 3000 calories a day and try to get 600g of carbs a day, I would like to think I eat in excess. Plus HCLF forum would say that around 10% of daily calories from fats would be low. I stick to a 80/10/10.0 -
Please continue high carb, why eat fat to lose fat? It's absurd. Keep sticking to your carb load because you'll need the energy throughout the day no matter what you're doing to get it done.
This is a great example of being severely misinformed about how fat acts in regards to nutrition. You ABSOLUTELY have to eat fat to lose fat. Fat that you eat doesn't turn into body fat.... Carbs do! There are thousands of studies and evidence to prove this. Processed carbs spike glucose levels, and then what is not used (most of it) is immediately stored as fat. Why do you think you love carbs so much? Because it's actually a sugar addiction. This is why we all are struggling...
It's not your fault though. The media and government is constantly giving you terrible advice and trying to trick us into eating more grains and sugar for their own gains. You're an example of a success of theirs.
https://www.ketovangelist.com/category/ketogenic_studies/
Also you don't understand how cholesterol works either. Cholesterol issues happen when you eat constant processed carbs (bread, pasta, etc) in conjunction with high fat. It's not the fatty meats that are the problem, it's the breads. These create a constant state of inflammation in your body with wreaks havoc on your health.
I eat super fatty cuts of meat every day and I have great cholesterol levels. What I don't eat, is processed carbs or sugar.
I am sorry but that is dead wrong. The only way that carbs get stored as fat is if one is in a calorie surplus. I get 50% of my calories from carbs, and I have had zero issues losing and maintaining my weight. Excess calories make people fat, period. Please link us to studies showing that carbs get stored as fat in a calorie deficit.
For the record, protein spikes your insulin levels as much as carbs, but I don't see anyone running around saying that protein gets stored as fat.
And there are no human clinical studies showing that sugar is an addictive substance.
Generally the rise in insulin from protein is less than that from carbohydrates. Less insulin us required for protein than carbs.
actually, it has been shown to be the same…..
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Meat is more insulin resistant than veggies and fruits my friend.0 -
That God you're here man. Some people on MFP forums preach HFLC and have no idea what they're doing to themselves and their bodies. Many ppl associate carbs with ice cream, cookies, chips, and oils. You and I, as HCLF, put those foods in the fat category, not carbs. You're a blessing to see in this forum my friend, so many ppl are uniformed.
In for the uniforms...
0 -
Mischievous_Rascal wrote: »
Wrong! Basics need to be applied individually to each person. If I netted 1500 calories a day I'd be a scarecrow, not to mention hormonally imbalanced. Please stop posting generic advice like this without knowing anything about the individual you're speaking to. It's dangerous.
Weight loss is calories in vs. calories out. You can't argue that.0 -
Mischievous_Rascal wrote: »
Wrong! Basics need to be applied individually to each person. If I netted 1500 calories a day I'd be a scarecrow, not to mention hormonally imbalanced. Please stop posting generic advice like this without knowing anything about the individual you're speaking to. It's dangerous.
Weight loss is calories in vs. calories out. You can't argue that.
no one is arguing that it is not CICO.
what we are saying is that you can't just give OP a blanket recommendation to eat 1500 calories a day without knowing what OP's stats are i.e. height, weight, age, gender....
0 -
Please continue high carb, why eat fat to lose fat? It's absurd. Keep sticking to your carb load because you'll need the energy throughout the day no matter what you're doing to get it done.
This is a great example of being severely misinformed about how fat acts in regards to nutrition. You ABSOLUTELY have to eat fat to lose fat. Fat that you eat doesn't turn into body fat.... Carbs do! There are thousands of studies and evidence to prove this. Processed carbs spike glucose levels, and then what is not used (most of it) is immediately stored as fat. Why do you think you love carbs so much? Because it's actually a sugar addiction. This is why we all are struggling...
It's not your fault though. The media and government is constantly giving you terrible advice and trying to trick us into eating more grains and sugar for their own gains. You're an example of a success of theirs.
https://www.ketovangelist.com/category/ketogenic_studies/
Also you don't understand how cholesterol works either. Cholesterol issues happen when you eat constant processed carbs (bread, pasta, etc) in conjunction with high fat. It's not the fatty meats that are the problem, it's the breads. These create a constant state of inflammation in your body with wreaks havoc on your health.
I eat super fatty cuts of meat every day and I have great cholesterol levels. What I don't eat, is processed carbs or sugar.
I am sorry but that is dead wrong. The only way that carbs get stored as fat is if one is in a calorie surplus. I get 50% of my calories from carbs, and I have had zero issues losing and maintaining my weight. Excess calories make people fat, period. Please link us to studies showing that carbs get stored as fat in a calorie deficit.
For the record, protein spikes your insulin levels as much as carbs, but I don't see anyone running around saying that protein gets stored as fat.
And there are no human clinical studies showing that sugar is an addictive substance.
Generally the rise in insulin from protein is less than that from carbohydrates. Less insulin us required for protein than carbs.
actually, it has been shown to be the same…..
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/
Meat is more insulin resistant than veggies and fruits my friend.
that is not what we were discussing....0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
So why are you limiting your protein if this is true? My understanding was some proteins create a greater response for insulin then some carbs. Is there list, I'm not sure. Your quote above was attached to ndj's quote stating carbs and proteins get the same response in insulin. So, he stated no one is running around saying protein isn't get stored as fat and you disagreed. I'm curious if you know which proteins, and probably a better question would be the why, have a response the same or greater then certain carbohydrates. It would probably help people to understand their issues related to insulin resistance and for diabetics working toward improving their blood glucose markers.
Generally the rise in insulin from protein is less than that from carbohydrates. Less insulin us required for protein than carbs.
In connection with diabetes, chronic kidney disease is a known risk of diabetes and excess protein is hard for the kidneys to process.
0 -
How long have you been doing the High vs Low?
If you don't see any changes maybe it's best you stay consistent on High or Moderate carbs until you start to see some changes.
Also what are your workouts like? and do you workout daily?
The days you are resting consume a lower amount of carbs
I personally stay the same with my carb intake as long as I am 5g within my macro goals, I will see changes in 2 days.I have been doing this for so many years so I know what works for my body, and I have no restrictions at all.
It's trial and error but as long as you stay consist you will see results no matter what 0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
So why are you limiting your protein if this is true? My understanding was some proteins create a greater response for insulin then some carbs. Is there list, I'm not sure. Your quote above was attached to ndj's quote stating carbs and proteins get the same response in insulin. So, he stated no one is running around saying protein isn't get stored as fat and you disagreed. I'm curious if you know which proteins, and probably a better question would be the why, have a response the same or greater then certain carbohydrates. It would probably help people to understand their issues related to insulin resistance and for diabetics working toward improving their blood glucose markers.
Generally the rise in insulin from protein is less than that from carbohydrates. Less insulin us required for protein than carbs.
In connection with diabetes, chronic kidney disease is a known risk of diabetes and excess protein is hard for the kidneys to process.
you would have to be eating an insane amount of protein to cause kidney damage....like 75% of your calories would need to be from protein, and that would need to be sustained protein intake...0 -
-
I never said that you said that.
I am just pointing out the flaws in the webMD article and am saying that LC is not any healthier than any other WOE.
They reduced their cardiovascular risk because they lose weight, not because they replaced carbs with anything.
Really? The reduced cardiovascular risk of the group consuming low carb compared to the group consuming high carb is because of weight loss? Last time I checked, when the results are different, the factor that is chosen to correlate with the different results needs to be different. The two groups experienced substantially identical weigh loss. So, no. Weight loss does not explain the better results achieved by those consuming a low carb diet.
Here's another study over a period of nearly 4 years, with the same results - including individuals who switched from high carb to low carb after the first 6 months so there are direct comparisons between the same individual consuming 20% carbohydrates and 55-65% carbohydrates.
"We have examined medical charts for episodes of cardiovascular disease beginning 3 months after the initiation of the diet therapy.
Among the 16 patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group (41 months observations time) and among the 7 controls that changed from the high-carbohydrate diet to the opposite (33 months observations time) – totalling 23 patients – 2 patients have suffered cardiovascular disease, stroke and heart failure respectively (8.5%. 95% confidence interval (CI 95%): 1.0–28.0). One patient without known cardiac disease has died suddenly. Autopsy showed no sign of coronary thrombosis, myocardial infarction or stroke. The cause of death unknown but assumed to be general atherosclerosis.
As for the 3 controls who switched diet at later dates, there has been no occurrence of cardiovascular disease.
Four patients (80%. CI 95%: 28.3–99.5) among the 5 controls that never attempted any change of diet have suffered several heart infarctions followed by heart failure. Two of them have died from their heart disease (p = 0.025. Fischer Exact)."
http://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-140 -
I feel sorry for the OP0
-
I never said that you said that.
I am just pointing out the flaws in the webMD article and am saying that LC is not any healthier than any other WOE.
They reduced their cardiovascular risk because they lose weight, not because they replaced carbs with anything.
Really? The reduced cardiovascular risk of the group consuming low carb compared to the group consuming high carb is because of weight loss? Last time I checked, when the results are different, the factor that is chosen to correlate with the different results needs to be different. The two groups experienced substantially identical weigh loss. So, no. Weight loss does not explain the better results achieved by those consuming a low carb diet.
Here's another study over a period of nearly 4 years, with the same results - including individuals who switched from high carb to low carb after the first 6 months so there are direct comparisons between the same individual consuming 20% carbohydrates and 55-65% carbohydrates.
"We have examined medical charts for episodes of cardiovascular disease beginning 3 months after the initiation of the diet therapy.
Among the 16 patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group (41 months observations time) and among the 7 controls that changed from the high-carbohydrate diet to the opposite (33 months observations time) – totalling 23 patients – 2 patients have suffered cardiovascular disease, stroke and heart failure respectively (8.5%. 95% confidence interval (CI 95%): 1.0–28.0). One patient without known cardiac disease has died suddenly. Autopsy showed no sign of coronary thrombosis, myocardial infarction or stroke. The cause of death unknown but assumed to be general atherosclerosis.
As for the 3 controls who switched diet at later dates, there has been no occurrence of cardiovascular disease.
Four patients (80%. CI 95%: 28.3–99.5) among the 5 controls that never attempted any change of diet have suffered several heart infarctions followed by heart failure. Two of them have died from their heart disease (p = 0.025. Fischer Exact)."
http://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-14
that is a study of people with type 2 diabetes...I assumed we were talking about people with no known medical condition...
ETA - I am not really understanding how they "tested" for cardiovascular disease? They took obese people and then reviewed their charts after the diet, but what if they had already done the damage through previous years of overeating and no exercise? They also say that two people on the low carb diet suffered heart disease...0 -
Some varieties of chips and cookies are just as much of a carb source as they are fat. In some cases, cookies have more calories from carbs than fat.PlantBasedKnight wrote: »@Wetcoaster I agree. and I will clarify what I meant by carbs:
Carbs when I mention them are:
whole Fruits (not only juice or canned)
whole Vegetables (raw or steamed or lightly cooked)
whole Root vegetables (steamed or boiled) ****
Squashes (steamed boiled or roasted)
Whole grains (wheat, rice, corn, barley, oats etc..) boiled, or made into a dough. minimally processed ****
whole Legumes (cooked steamed or roasted)
non of the above should be prepared fried, with oil/butter, or any type of fat on earth.
**** This does not include in any case the following: chips, crisps, white flour products, supermarket cakes and cookies and biscuits as they are actually fats not carbs, pretzels and processed junk alike.
That God you're here man. Some people on MFP forums preach HFLC and have no idea what they're doing to themselves and their bodies. Many ppl associate carbs with ice cream, cookies, chips, and oils. You and I, as HCLF, put those foods in the fat category, not carbs. You're a blessing to see in this forum my friend, so many ppl are uniformed.
0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »
Hmm interesting I eat little to no Fat ( 50g) and Carbs gives me plenty of energy.0 -
Meat is more insulin resistant than veggies and fruits my friend.
FOOD is not insulin resistant. Human bodies are/can be insulin resistant.
That's at least the second time you've made a similar nonsensical comment - and I've already called you on it once.
Here's a decent description of insulin resistance:
The diminished ability of cells to respond to the action of insulin in transporting glucose (sugar) from the bloodstream into muscle and other tissues. Insulin resistance typically develops with obesity and heralds the onset of type 2 diabetes. It is as if insulin is "knocking" on the door of muscle. The muscle hears the knock, opens up, and lets glucose in. But with insulin resistance, the muscle cannot hear the knocking of the insulin (the muscle is "resistant"). The pancreas makes more insulin, which increases insulin levels in the blood and causes a louder "knock." Eventually, the pancreas produces far more insulin than normal and the muscles continue to be resistant to the knock. As long as one can produce enough insulin to overcome this resistance, blood glucose levels remain normal. Once the pancreas is no longer able to keep up, blood glucose starts to rise, initially after meals, eventually even in the fasting state. Type 2 diabetes is now overt.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18822
Please verify what you are saying before perpetuating scientific nonsense as fact, especially when you have already been told that it is nonsense.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
So why are you limiting your protein if this is true? My understanding was some proteins create a greater response for insulin then some carbs. Is there list, I'm not sure. Your quote above was attached to ndj's quote stating carbs and proteins get the same response in insulin. So, he stated no one is running around saying protein isn't get stored as fat and you disagreed. I'm curious if you know which proteins, and probably a better question would be the why, have a response the same or greater then certain carbohydrates. It would probably help people to understand their issues related to insulin resistance and for diabetics working toward improving their blood glucose markers.
Generally the rise in insulin from protein is less than that from carbohydrates. Less insulin us required for protein than carbs.
In connection with diabetes, chronic kidney disease is a known risk of diabetes and excess protein is hard for the kidneys to process.
you would have to be eating an insane amount of protein to cause kidney damage....like 75% of your calories would need to be from protein, and that would need to be sustained protein intake...
In a person without risk for kidney disease, that may well be correct - if you are talking about damage solely from consuming protein.
In a person at risk (anyone with diabetes), consumption should be considerably lower because of the underlying predisposition, but the risk of undiagnosed kidney disease. A December study documented that even moderately high blood sugar (prediabetes range) is been linked to chronic kidney disease - much of it undiagnosed until the later stages (the diagnoses in the study occurred because researchers were specifically looking for kidney disease and determined that the standard screening tests are missing the early stages of kidney disease).
In other words, in addition to being at greater risk - if you have had even prediabetes for an extended period of time you are far more likely to already have kidney disease and not know it. So it does not make medical sense for people with diabetes to trade protein for carbs - which might contribute to causing kidney damage or exacerbate existing diagnosed kidney disease.0 -
I never said that you said that.
I am just pointing out the flaws in the webMD article and am saying that LC is not any healthier than any other WOE.
They reduced their cardiovascular risk because they lose weight, not because they replaced carbs with anything.
Really? The reduced cardiovascular risk of the group consuming low carb compared to the group consuming high carb is because of weight loss? Last time I checked, when the results are different, the factor that is chosen to correlate with the different results needs to be different. The two groups experienced substantially identical weigh loss. So, no. Weight loss does not explain the better results achieved by those consuming a low carb diet.
Here's another study over a period of nearly 4 years, with the same results - including individuals who switched from high carb to low carb after the first 6 months so there are direct comparisons between the same individual consuming 20% carbohydrates and 55-65% carbohydrates.
"We have examined medical charts for episodes of cardiovascular disease beginning 3 months after the initiation of the diet therapy.
Among the 16 patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group (41 months observations time) and among the 7 controls that changed from the high-carbohydrate diet to the opposite (33 months observations time) – totalling 23 patients – 2 patients have suffered cardiovascular disease, stroke and heart failure respectively (8.5%. 95% confidence interval (CI 95%): 1.0–28.0). One patient without known cardiac disease has died suddenly. Autopsy showed no sign of coronary thrombosis, myocardial infarction or stroke. The cause of death unknown but assumed to be general atherosclerosis.
As for the 3 controls who switched diet at later dates, there has been no occurrence of cardiovascular disease.
Four patients (80%. CI 95%: 28.3–99.5) among the 5 controls that never attempted any change of diet have suffered several heart infarctions followed by heart failure. Two of them have died from their heart disease (p = 0.025. Fischer Exact)."
http://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-14
that is a study of people with type 2 diabetes...I assumed we were talking about people with no known medical condition...
ETA - I am not really understanding how they "tested" for cardiovascular disease? They took obese people and then reviewed their charts after the diet, but what if they had already done the damage through previous years of overeating and no exercise? They also say that two people on the low carb diet suffered heart disease...
Read the study. It answers your questions.
Basic math is your friend, by the way. Yes, two people on the low carb diet had cardiovascular incidents. That is two out of 23 - roughly 9%. Of the five who continued eating the high carb diet traditionally recommended to diabetics for the full length of the study, 4 had cardiovascular incidents - 80%.
No one has said that eating low carb will prevent 100% of cardiovascular incidents - but there is growing data suggesting that it does decreases the risk more than a high carb diet, in a population that is particularly at risk for heart disease (despite relatively dramatically increased fat consumption).0 -
I never said that you said that.
I am just pointing out the flaws in the webMD article and am saying that LC is not any healthier than any other WOE.
They reduced their cardiovascular risk because they lose weight, not because they replaced carbs with anything.
Really? The reduced cardiovascular risk of the group consuming low carb compared to the group consuming high carb is because of weight loss? Last time I checked, when the results are different, the factor that is chosen to correlate with the different results needs to be different. The two groups experienced substantially identical weigh loss. So, no. Weight loss does not explain the better results achieved by those consuming a low carb diet.
Here's another study over a period of nearly 4 years, with the same results - including individuals who switched from high carb to low carb after the first 6 months so there are direct comparisons between the same individual consuming 20% carbohydrates and 55-65% carbohydrates.
"We have examined medical charts for episodes of cardiovascular disease beginning 3 months after the initiation of the diet therapy.
Among the 16 patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group (41 months observations time) and among the 7 controls that changed from the high-carbohydrate diet to the opposite (33 months observations time) – totalling 23 patients – 2 patients have suffered cardiovascular disease, stroke and heart failure respectively (8.5%. 95% confidence interval (CI 95%): 1.0–28.0). One patient without known cardiac disease has died suddenly. Autopsy showed no sign of coronary thrombosis, myocardial infarction or stroke. The cause of death unknown but assumed to be general atherosclerosis.
As for the 3 controls who switched diet at later dates, there has been no occurrence of cardiovascular disease.
Four patients (80%. CI 95%: 28.3–99.5) among the 5 controls that never attempted any change of diet have suffered several heart infarctions followed by heart failure. Two of them have died from their heart disease (p = 0.025. Fischer Exact)."
http://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-7075-5-14
that is a study of people with type 2 diabetes...I assumed we were talking about people with no known medical condition...
ETA - I am not really understanding how they "tested" for cardiovascular disease? They took obese people and then reviewed their charts after the diet, but what if they had already done the damage through previous years of overeating and no exercise? They also say that two people on the low carb diet suffered heart disease...
Read the study. It answers your questions.
Basic math is your friend, by the way. Yes, two people on the low carb diet had cardiovascular incidents. That is two out of 23 - roughly 9%. Of the five who continued eating the high carb diet traditionally recommended to diabetics for the full length of the study, 4 had cardiovascular incidents - 80%.
No one has said that eating low carb will prevent 100% of cardiovascular incidents - but there is growing data suggesting that it does decreases the risk more than a high carb diet, in a population that is particularly at risk for heart disease (despite relatively dramatically increased fat consumption).
this is all they say about it:
Cardiovascular disease
We have examined medical charts for episodes of cardiovascular disease beginning 3 months after the initiation of the diet therapy.
Among the 16 patients in the low-carbohydrate diet group (41 months observations time) and among the 7 controls that changed from the high-carbohydrate diet to the opposite (33 months observations time) – totalling 23 patients – 2 patients have suffered cardiovascular disease, stroke and heart failure respectively (8.5%. 95% confidence interval (CI 95%): 1.0–28.0). One patient without known cardiac disease has died suddenly. Autopsy showed no sign of coronary thrombosis, myocardial infarction or stroke. The cause of death unknown but assumed to be general atherosclerosis.
As for the 3 controls who switched diet at later dates, there has been no occurrence of cardiovascular disease.
Four patients (80%. CI 95%: 28.3–99.5) among the 5 controls that never attempted any change of diet have suffered several heart infarctions followed by heart failure. Two of them have died from their heart disease (p = 0.025. Fischer Exact).
Again, if they already had heart disease from bad diet and exercise, not really sure what that proves. I don't have time to read the whole thing right now..0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions