Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Dr Sarah Hallburg: Calories in vs calories out pet peeve

2456

Replies

  • dubirddubird Posts: 1,854Member Member Posts: 1,854Member Member
    If you eat at a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. HOW you do it varys from person to person, so while LCHF may work for one person, it won't for another. Take the low carb group. Someone determined to go low carb may find that that approach makes them pay more attention to the food they eat and cut out a lot of high calorie/low nutrition choices. They are still eating at a calorie deficit, just adapting their diet to a specific plan. I would never want to go low carb, I enjoy bread WAY to much! So it wouldn't work for me.

    I would also like to point out that watching carbs is important for diabetics. Your body breaks it down into sugar, which will spike your blood sugar. You don't have to cut it out, but you do have to watch it and make sure you're not overloading. HSpoon has a limit of carbs he eats for each meal. That seems to do the best at keeping his blood sugar where it's supposed to be, but that doesn't mean he can't enjoy pasta. Just need to know about it beforehand to plan for it in his day.
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    She is an obesity dr and specialized in diabetes. The videos are free and I don't see any books.

    I think this her legit belief. She sounds credible but then I think... Wait.... So I shouldn't count calories, but I should follow:

    20g carbs
    80g protein
    135g fat

    Isn't gram counting macros the same as calorie counting? That's when it started sounding off to me.

    And also her part about insulin causing hunger... But goes on to say CICO doesn't matter. She is saying that people are eating too much without saying it.

    I can't put my finger on it but I find it weird.
    Well, it is to an extent, but I think she would tell you that the fat is more like a goal, not a limit. So in your case, if you told her that you ate:

    20g carbs
    80g pro
    150g fat

    She would probably be fine with that. At least that's the way I understand it. In this example, you would go from 1615 to 1750 calories. You could go as high as 175g fat (1975 cals) and be within that 80% number. However, as @nvmomketo pointed out, people on LCHF probably tend to cut calories as fat seems to be better at satisfying hunger than carbs. That is my experience with it as well. Since I have started, I have no problem staying under the mfp prescribed calorie allotment even though that is no longer my goal.

    Actually, lots of studies suggest that carbs are more satiating than fat for the average person (which is my experience).

    Carb choice matters, though, as fiber is more satiating for most than highly refined or low fiber carbs. Often people who claim to have benefited from a low carb diet were making terrible carb choices before and also increase their protein (which is satiating to most).

    I do agree that for some people fat is probably satiating. It's not for me at all.
    Word. What's an example of the types of carb choices for greater satiating effect?
  • HornsbyHornsby Posts: 10,372Member Member Posts: 10,372Member Member
    The most satiating food of all is potatoes in my opinion.
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    Oishii wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I don't think she has anything to sell. I am curious as to what if she does.

    I don't know what and if, but most people of that kind at the very least are selling books, diet plans or "private counselling".

    Isn't she gaining financially by making the video?

    not sure how many million youtube hits you need to make an income that would be of interest to a Doctor
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Actually, lots of studies suggest that carbs are more satiating than fat for the average person (which is my experience).

    In the context of a moderate or high carb diet perhaps ?

    The LCHF claim is not about fats being satiating but the whole low insulin / low blood glucose / ketogenic "state" being hunger suppressing.

    So its futile to look for example foods or meals and say whether they are more or less filing to someone, the LCHF thing is the absence of hunger or whatever it is that leads many people on ad lib LCHF diets to simply eat less voluntarily.

  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    moe0303 wrote: »
    She is an obesity dr and specialized in diabetes. The videos are free and I don't see any books.

    I think this her legit belief. She sounds credible but then I think... Wait.... So I shouldn't count calories, but I should follow:

    20g carbs
    80g protein
    135g fat

    Isn't gram counting macros the same as calorie counting? That's when it started sounding off to me.

    And also her part about insulin causing hunger... But goes on to say CICO doesn't matter. She is saying that people are eating too much without saying it.

    I can't put my finger on it but I find it weird.
    Well, it is to an extent, but I think she would tell you that the fat is more like a goal, not a limit. So in your case, if you told her that you ate:

    20g carbs
    80g pro
    150g fat

    She would probably be fine with that. At least that's the way I understand it. In this example, you would go from 1615 to 1750 calories. You could go as high as 175g fat (1975 cals) and be within that 80% number. However, as @nvmomketo pointed out, people on LCHF probably tend to cut calories as fat seems to be better at satisfying hunger than carbs. That is my experience with it as well. Since I have started, I have no problem staying under the mfp prescribed calorie allotment even though that is no longer my goal.

    Actually, lots of studies suggest that carbs are more satiating than fat for the average person (which is my experience).

    Carb choice matters, though, as fiber is more satiating for most than highly refined or low fiber carbs. Often people who claim to have benefited from a low carb diet were making terrible carb choices before and also increase their protein (which is satiating to most).

    I do agree that for some people fat is probably satiating. It's not for me at all.
    Word. What's an example of the types of carb choices for greater satiating effect?

    Potatoes are commonly found to be satiating, as Hornsby says, and higher fiber is usually a positive factor.

    The main thing is that people differ, so it's going to depend on the person.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Actually, lots of studies suggest that carbs are more satiating than fat for the average person (which is my experience).

    In the context of a moderate or high carb diet perhaps ?

    The LCHF claim is not about fats being satiating but the whole low insulin / low blood glucose / ketogenic "state" being hunger suppressing.

    So its futile to look for example foods or meals and say whether they are more or less filing to someone, the LCHF thing is the absence of hunger or whatever it is that leads many people on ad lib LCHF diets to simply eat less voluntarily.

    I get the argument about ketogenic diets, but the fact is that people continually assert that fat is more satiating on MFP, outside that context. That's what I'm arguing against.
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?

    And to another point, the essential fatty acids and essential amino acids arguments made by LCHF followers... She says the same thing, that there is no "essential" carb because the body can make its own glucose. But if the body can make its own glucose, doesn't that just prove how essential it is that we have created a mechanism for creating glucose ourselves in the absence of any new raw material?

    A "deficit" is post hoc energy accounting, so if someone puts on weight they weren't in a deficit as they have more energy in store at the end than the beginning.

    There's a lot of individual variation to carbohydrate and indeed calorie restriction. Some studies show a general trend for IR subjects to lose more weight on low carb, others don't. In general insulin levels fall with calorie restriction, which eases insulin resistance, so IR is itself a moving target in an individual losing weight.

    The word "essential" in nutrition means something that you have to eat to get it as you can't make it. Is doesn't just mean "something you have to have". Seems to be widely accepted that the minimum carbohydrate intake compatible with life is zero and that there is no diagnosable disease of carbohydrate intake insufficiency.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    I've never heard of her but I've heard similar arguments and it seems to be not that they are saying CI<CO won't result in fat loss, but that focusing only on calories isn't the right way to approach weight loss, especially if you have IR.

    It's a popular argument. IIFYM does the same thing. Worry about your macros, and calories will follow by default. WW does something similar as well. Worry about points and calories will work themselves out.
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    Potatoes are commonly found to be satiating, as Hornsby says, and higher fiber is usually a positive factor.

    The main thing is that people differ, so it's going to depend on the person.

    Aren't potatoes relatively low in fiber though? Meh. I guess it all comes down to "To each his own".
    edited March 2016
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »

    The LCHF claim is not about fats being satiating but the whole low insulin / low blood glucose / ketogenic "state" being hunger suppressing.

    Never thought to look at it that way. Thanks @yarwell
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    Potatoes are commonly found to be satiating, as Hornsby says, and higher fiber is usually a positive factor.

    The main thing is that people differ, so it's going to depend on the person.

    Aren't potatoes relatively low in fiber though? Meh. I guess it all comes down to "To each his own".

    Yes, that's why I mentioned them separately. Who knows why, but they score well for satiety (it's one of the reasons the claim that being low GI makes foods more satiating is questionable).
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    moe0303 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »

    The LCHF claim is not about fats being satiating but the whole low insulin / low blood glucose / ketogenic "state" being hunger suppressing.

    Never thought to look at it that way. Thanks @yarwell

    I would add that I think this is significant if you find the diet itself something you can stick with AND find that you otherwise tend to struggle with hunger.

    Lots of people (like me) don't find hunger to be an issue, so long as we eat sensibly.
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Yes, that's why I mentioned them separately. Who knows why, but they score well for satiety (it's one of the reasons the claim that being low GI makes foods more satiating is questionable).

    What is kept the same when comparing satiety of a food ? Calories ? A baked potato can be a lump of a thing that will certainly stuff the average stomach full.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Yes, that's why I mentioned them separately. Who knows why, but they score well for satiety (it's one of the reasons the claim that being low GI makes foods more satiating is questionable).

    What is kept the same when comparing satiety of a food ? Calories ? A baked potato can be a lump of a thing that will certainly stuff the average stomach full.

    Here's one example, and yes, calories: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104
  • emhunteremhunter Posts: 1,212Member Member Posts: 1,212Member Member
    I have started watching a few of Dr Sarah Hallburgs LCHF videos.

    As far as LCHF goes in regards to controlling diabetes type 2, and insulin resistance, I understand the metabolic advantages as it relates to controlling blood glucose.

    What I don't understand is her saying that Insulin resistance makes us fat and that it's a pet peeve of hers when she hears calories in vs calories out. She says CI vs CO is another way to call people gluttons and sloths.

    My question is this: if you eat at or below maintenance and are insulin resistant, how do you still get fat?

    My issue with her is as follows:

    She says insulin resistance (70% of Americans she says) and a high carb diet forces the body to convert carbs into fat. And the spikes cause hunger which cause you to eat more... So is that not just another way to say you are taking in too many calories? She isn't specific if the same happens when eating at a deficit.

    She also says your macro breakdown should be 70-80% fat and 20-50g of carbs...but she doesn't want people to count calories. In order to track those two macros, isn't that another way to count calories?

    For women, she says we should have about 80g of protein, making up 15% of our diet. And 70%-80% fat and 20-35g carbs. Which is about 1600 calories. So how is her formula not calorie counting?!

    She says if you follow the macro ratios you will loose weight. But purposefully glosses over actual calories and energy output.

    My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?

    And to another point, the essential fatty acids and essential amino acids arguments made by LCHF followers... She says the same thing, that there is no "essential" carb because the body can make its own glucose. But if the body can make its own glucose, doesn't that just prove how essential it is that we have created a mechanism for creating glucose ourselves in the absence of any new raw material?

    What is the real truth about weight gain and insulin resistance?

    I was pcos/IR. My dr told me if I lost 10% of my body weight it would reverse. He was right. I did it with calorie counting and a balanced diet. Am I a special snowflake?
    I have started watching a few of Dr Sarah Hallburgs LCHF videos.

    As far as LCHF goes in regards to controlling diabetes type 2, and insulin resistance, I understand the metabolic advantages as it relates to controlling blood glucose.

    What I don't understand is her saying that Insulin resistance makes us fat and that it's a pet peeve of hers when she hears calories in vs calories out. She says CI vs CO is another way to call people gluttons and sloths.

    My question is this: if you eat at or below maintenance and are insulin resistant, how do you still get fat?

    My issue with her is as follows:

    She says insulin resistance (70% of Americans she says) and a high carb diet forces the body to convert carbs into fat. And the spikes cause hunger which cause you to eat more... So is that not just another way to say you are taking in too many calories? She isn't specific if the same happens when eating at a deficit.

    She also says your macro breakdown should be 70-80% fat and 20-50g of carbs...but she doesn't want people to count calories. In order to track those two macros, isn't that another way to count calories?

    For women, she says we should have about 80g of protein, making up 15% of our diet. And 70%-80% fat and 20-35g carbs. Which is about 1600 calories. So how is her formula not calorie counting?!

    She says if you follow the macro ratios you will loose weight. But purposefully glosses over actual calories and energy output.

    My question for discussion is this: in her logic, is she trying to say, regardless of the deficit, people with IR will put on weight with a higher carb diet?

    And to another point, the essential fatty acids and essential amino acids arguments made by LCHF followers... She says the same thing, that there is no "essential" carb because the body can make its own glucose. But if the body can make its own glucose, doesn't that just prove how essential it is that we have created a mechanism for creating glucose ourselves in the absence of any new raw material?

    What is the real truth about weight gain and insulin resistance?

    I was pcos/IR. My dr told me if I lost 10% of my body weight it would reverse. He was right. I did it with calorie counting and a balanced diet. Am I a special snowflake?

    Always been thin until law school. Then lost all the weight while studying for the bar. But for me to lose, I have to eat very low calories and carbs. And still work out at a high intensity. A lot. I have PCOS and I am insulin resistant but even at my smaller weight, I cannot eat a lot of carbs or I start to put back on weight. Even with weighing food. I think everyone is different. Although a majority may not have this problem, it does exist.
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Yes, that's why I mentioned them separately. Who knows why, but they score well for satiety (it's one of the reasons the claim that being low GI makes foods more satiating is questionable).

    What is kept the same when comparing satiety of a food ? Calories ? A baked potato can be a lump of a thing that will certainly stuff the average stomach full.

    Here's one example, and yes, calories: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104

    Looks like water content was a big factor r = 0.64, P < 0.001

    The potato was 7 times more satiating than the croissant, but you got to eat 6 times the mass. I wonder how this would work if the foods were dehydrated to a common moisture content.
    edited March 2016
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    Yes, that's why I mentioned them separately. Who knows why, but they score well for satiety (it's one of the reasons the claim that being low GI makes foods more satiating is questionable).

    What is kept the same when comparing satiety of a food ? Calories ? A baked potato can be a lump of a thing that will certainly stuff the average stomach full.

    Here's one example, and yes, calories: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104

    Looks like water content was a big factor r = 0.64, P < 0.001

    The potato was 7 times more satiating than the croissant, but you got to eat 6 times the mass. I wonder how this would work if the foods were dehydrated to a common moisture content.

    Why would that matter? The foods being in the condition we eat them seems more relevant.
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    it would be interesting to know what drives satiety - a big lump of anything (potato) or specific components. Seems water content comes out as a big part of it, so would (for example) a croissant + 300 ml of water (or coffee ?) match a potato.

    Otherwise we don't know if a potato is a satiating food per se, or just low in calorie density so that you have to eat a lot to hit the calorie goal of the test.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    I think it varies from person to person, clearly, and that being high volume for the calories is probably going to be part of it (and GI less a part of it than some assumed). I also think taste is part of it -- supposedly people are more prone to eat more potato when butter is added (or probably when it's fries), even though the fat would reduce GI.

    For me, volume matters, but I don't know if that's because the high volume (low calorie density) foods are actually more filling or that there's a psychological effect of feeling like I ate a big meal/full plate. I suspect the latter, actually. Protein also matters for me. Having experimented with adding more fat (I like fat, so kind of wanted an excuse to eat more of it), it has very little satiating effect for me at all, but I believe those who say it does for them (and that they find full fat dairy more filling and all that). I can really easily be full on a low fat diet at under 1200 (or could back when I had more to lose), but I'd not find that sustainable long-term as I'd get bored and miss stuff like cheese.
    edited March 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.