Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Low carb and vegetables
Replies
-
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
This sounds just like "If limiting carbs is all that matters, why couldn't you just eat zero vegetables?"
Context matters here. When this phrases is used, it's usually to a "OMG I ATE A COOKIE MY DIET IS RUINED" or "I can't do it anymore, I miss my usual foods" types of threads. It's usually used to assist the poster with adherence or correct faulty claims like "i gain weight on 1200 calories, I went low carb and now I'm losing on 2000 calories because carbs make you fat" or "dairy makes you fat" or [inset anything] makes you fat. Basically, it's used to state a weight loss fact, not to evaluate the quality of a diet. Never once have I seen it used to tell a person to eat nothing but pizza and chips.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
Oh right, you read one sentence and ignore every thing else. People say CICO, then follow it with you need to hit your basic nutritional requirements, eat foods that keep you feeling satiated, take into account medical issues, etc.
But you ignore that. Fine.
Just point on the doll where the CICO touched you...
But if a calorie is a calorie and all calories are the same, then why do macros even matter at all? You still haven't answered that question. Even if someone has a medical issue, if all calories are the same, then why would it matter?
For me, CICO led to the all too familiar roller coaster. That's one reason why I'm questioning it now. I'm not saying that calories don't matter. But to me, they're not the only thing that matters. They're just one component.
And again, that's really not necessary.
Satiety. Fat soluble vitamin absorption. Maintenance of lean muscle mass.
Don't act ignorant of the fact that these ideas are brought up over, and over, and over again in CICO threads.
Why are macros important for lean muscle mass if all calories are the same?
Why would one type of macronutrient satisfy my hunger better than another if all calories are the same?
To put it another way, if "a calorie is a calorie" and all calories are the same, then why couldn't I maintain muscle mass and keep my hunger satisfied on nothing but carbs? It's all the same, right?
I'm still not getting it. Perhaps you could explain it it to me. It's almost like you're saying that macronutrients, carbs vs. fats vs. proteins, have some kind of actual affect on human metabolism and feelings of hunger vs. satiety, and that different kinds of fuel feed our bodies in different ways that can actually affect our overall health and body composition. But that can't possibly be what you're saying, because a calorie is a calorie.
No, I can't because at this point you're being willfully ignorant.
0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
Macros matter for health. Most who follow a moderation diet make that very clear.
And yes, a calorie is a calorie.
If all calories are the same, then why do macros matter for health? That's contradictory.
No, but it seems to be a common misunderstanding by those bent on it.
Calorie is not, actually, a synonym for food. It is a unit of energy. Of course foods are different (although I personally think the significance of macros, beyond minimum protein, is overstated here). It is important for health and well-being to eat a generally nutritious diet, and food choice matters for that (although there is more flexibility than some seem to accept, and if you eat a good diet there's no harm in also including some extra, lower nutrient stuff, whether cheese or bacon or apple pie).
No one ever has claimed that foods are identical. That seems to be a willful misunderstanding of a calorie is a calorie.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
Macros matter for health. Most who follow a moderation diet make that very clear.
And yes, a calorie is a calorie.
If all calories are the same, then why do macros matter for health? That's contradictory.
Because as has been pointed out time and time again - calories are a unit of measurement of energy. A calorie is a calorie the same way an inch is an inch, or a meter is a meter, for our Imperial loving friends. That does not mean that all foods are the same from a macro and micro nutrient perspective.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
I don't usually like meat, but this looks like an exception (if I play the ground beef right with my usual additions that make it less "meaty"). Wonder how many calories a slice of that would be. Possibly 500?
630 when I did the Nigella recipe (which has a can of tomatoes in it)0 -
Wait, so when someone posts "HALP, I CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT NO MATTER WHAT I DO!!2124!" someone doesn't chime in and suggest cutting out sugar and carbs?
Are we on the same forums?0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »I had rabbit meat once. It was actually pretty good.
Spitting out the buckshot though, who ever can find the time?
That's really uncalled for. We can disagree with each other without being insulting and derogatory, or resorting to ad hominem. That's really not necessary. And I live in Los Angeles, not that it matters.
Actually, this post, as part of this long thread filled with arguments from passionate people on different sides who, if you actually looked at it, are really not that dissimilar in their goals and the way that they choose to eat, reminded me of this gif and what happens when people are so caught up in the argument that they fail to actually comprehend what the other side is saying...1 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »OK, you all make fun of that, but if someone had a doughy pizza full of white flour and processed meat, which every health expert tells you to avoid or minimize, and chemical laden chips full of hydrogenated oil (trans fat), with no veggies at all, you'd be like "Hey it's cool just as long as it fits into your calories! There's no such thing as junk food!" But now whole meat and cheese are junk food?
Oh look. Exactly what NO ONE said. Shocking, you're just flailing around words and acting injured while missing the point entirely.
That's exactly what people, a lot of people, say here every day, and anyone who raises an objection gets shouted down.
Oh, maybe you meant the part about whole meat and cheese being junk food. Yes, but it's said here that it should be limited. Yet oddly, anyone who says that ultra processed foods should be limited is told that they're wrong. So you should limit meat and cheese, but freely eat food loaded with HFCS and trans fats? That's what I don't understand.
Actually they don't. What is often said is "if it fits your macros" which is different than "if it fits your calories."
I also don't feel that anything is shouted down here. Misinformation is confronted, but that's a completely different thing.
If a calorie is a calorie, then why do macros even matter at all? Why couldn't you just eat all protein, or all carbs, or all fat? A calorie is a calorie, right?
Oh right, you read one sentence and ignore every thing else. People say CICO, then follow it with you need to hit your basic nutritional requirements, eat foods that keep you feeling satiated, take into account medical issues, etc.
But you ignore that. Fine.
Just point on the doll where the CICO touched you...
But if a calorie is a calorie and all calories are the same, then why do macros even matter at all? You still haven't answered that question. Even if someone has a medical issue, if all calories are the same, then why would it matter?
For me, CICO led to the all too familiar roller coaster. That's one reason why I'm questioning it now. I'm not saying that calories don't matter. But to me, they're not the only thing that matters. They're just one component.
And again, that's really not necessary.
Satiety. Fat soluble vitamin absorption. Maintenance of lean muscle mass.
Don't act ignorant of the fact that these ideas are brought up over, and over, and over again in CICO threads.
Why are macros important for lean muscle mass if all calories are the same?
Why would one type of macronutrient satisfy my hunger better than another if all calories are the same?
To put it another way, if "a calorie is a calorie" and all calories are the same, then why couldn't I maintain muscle mass and keep my hunger satisfied on nothing but carbs? It's all the same, right?
I'm still not getting it. Perhaps you could explain it it to me. It's almost like you're saying that macronutrients, carbs vs. fats vs. proteins, have some kind of actual affect on human metabolism and feelings of hunger vs. satiety, and that different kinds of fuel feed our bodies in different ways that can actually affect our overall health and body composition. But that can't possibly be what you're saying, because a calorie is a calorie.
Levels of analysis.
Let's first ignore all the energy that leaves your body (calories out) as a black box and just assume we have a fixed number of them going out everyday - your Total Daily Energy Expenditure TDEE - things like Fitibts try to estimate this number.
So now we know your body is putting a certain amount of energy amount every day. Ultimately, it tends to leave your body as heat. Heat content is often measured in calories - amounts of energy it takes to heat water.
At this level, the laws of thermodynamics tell us about book keeping. If the system is going to stay the same, the energy out has to be balanced coming in, and this assumes the system stays the same - different states of greater or lesser organization are forms of energy (entropy) too. So to stay the same, we have to say calories in and calories out are balanced. This is true at this level of analysis.
If calories in becomes less than calories out, the energy has to be the same. You can't draw energy out of nothing, all energy is transfer, never creation or destruction, this is thermodynamic laws' book keeping. The energy therefore has to come by removing organization from your body, typically in the bonds of molecules of fat molecules in your body. This all, always holds true.
Now, deeper level, macros.
Your body isn't just fat, and fat isn't the only thing you can lose, obviously. You could lose energy by changing composition of the body - losing highly structured muscle which your body is generally against doing because making muscle isn't a very reversible process - you lose a lot of the energy that was used to make all that structure and you can't recover it. At this level, hormonal signals and metabolic pathways as a vague thing have some importance. Protein levels, particularly the amino acid leucine tend to signal how "worth it" building or tearing down muscle is, depending on other signals of actual activity.
At this level, fats begin to matter, Some hormonal signals can only be made from fats, and they must be used, either from your body's stores or your diet. Particularly as a person becomes leaner, using storage fat for this purpose becomes harder and harder because there is less of it to use.
Deeper yet is micros
Lack of things like B-vitamins means your body could have all the carbs or fats it needs for energy, it can't perform the chemical reactions. Those vitamins are used in activity the switches and turning the dials that are pumping electron bonds on and off the the carbs and fats to ultimately transfer energy. They have no calories themselves, but without them, ingested calories are useless.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Now, deeper than that, I can't, outside of a rather convoluted diet, feed someone just fats, sugar molecules, amino acids and vitamin and mineral pills.
So now we have foods, and foods have various compositions of those things plus a lot of water. Your body has to spend a bit of energy itself just unlocking the way the food itself could have created storage forms of the food. Sometimes the human body itself doesn't even have the chemistry - this could either pass through entirely undigested or often our gut bacteria do have the enzymes and partner with us, we bring the lunch, they give us part of the energy, breaking down resistant starches and other fiber materials. At this level suddenly the calories in a carbohydrate that are ultimately deliverable to the human body are variable based on the food, and the species of bacteria in the gut.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Wait, so when someone posts "HALP, I CAN'T LOSE WEIGHT NO MATTER WHAT I DO!!2124!" someone doesn't chime in and suggest cutting out sugar and carbs?
Are we on the same forums?
We may not be looking at them from the same bias.
In general I do not see people jump in to generalist questions / threads and recommend low carb , no. Cutting out sugar maybe more so, but also not prevalent. Someone with PCOS or Diabetic issues etc are more likely to be suggested to try reducing carbs.
It is on the other hand a very rare occasion where someone asking for help with, or about, low carb doesn't get at least one and more likely five replies to the effect of "it isn't necessary" etc etc.
If I had the time and the motivation I would document this as a study of forum psychology or something, but its OT for this thread anyway.
Seems to me some people are attacking ghosts - challenge carnivores that I haven't seen. Perhaps they imagine them and have a go even though they aren't there. Maybe it's a vegetarian thing to confront anything that might be pro-meat.
Or maybe they lurk in the Low Carb forum until their safety valves are about to blow then go out looking for a target in the main forums.0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »For me, CICO led to the all too familiar roller coaster. That's one reason why I'm questioning it now. I'm not saying that calories don't matter. But to me, they're not the only thing that matters. They're just one component.
CICO is not a diet or a particular way to eat, and I continue to find it puzzling when people assume from "eat what you like within your calories" that they mean "don't worry about eating a good diet" or "ignore nutrition." For me what I like includes reference to my particular goals, such as eating balanced meals and fiber and omega-3s and protein and veg, as well as trying to meet nutritional goals before adding in extras (and, yeah, cutting back some on sat fat and meat).
I get the impression that some reason "eat what you like within your calories" in a way that strikes me as odd and irresponsible -- that "what you like" has no reference to nutrition (and assumes taste preferences are all for "junk" food).
So I'd say that if you didn't like the diet you were eating when focusing primarily on calories, that wasn't because there's anything about CICO that's inconsistent with eating a good diet (I think most of us CICO supporters here try to eat according to what we consider a good diet is), but because of the particular choices you chose to make.
I tend to assume that most people who experiment will find--within a focus on cutting calories-- that there are certain ways to eat that help them feel better and be more satisfied. For me, that's eating a balanced, nutrient conscious diet and not snacking. For others it might be eating more protein (I did this too) or fewer carbs or more fiber, etc. -- lots of different things.
As WinoGelato, I actually think there's less disagreement on this board (well, other than the McDougall-types and the carnivores, perhaps) than these discussions would lead you to believe, and a lot of it IS people talking past each other. You seem to have come in assuming that others don't care about nutrition, that "processed food"="junk food," and that CICO means don't worry about eating a good diet or nutrition. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I'm getting from your posts. (And yeah, like I said upthread, I admit to my own misunderstandings and getting defensive when lectured about bad nutrition from those I don't think are any more concerned about nutrition than I am.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »For me, CICO led to the all too familiar roller coaster. That's one reason why I'm questioning it now. I'm not saying that calories don't matter. But to me, they're not the only thing that matters. They're just one component.
CICO is not a diet or a particular way to eat, and I continue to find it puzzling when people assume from "eat what you like within your calories" that they mean "don't worry about eating a good diet" or "ignore nutrition." For me what I like includes reference to my particular goals, such as eating balanced meals and fiber and omega-3s and protein and veg, as well as trying to meet nutritional goals before adding in extras (and, yeah, cutting back some on sat fat and meat).
I get the impression that some reason "eat what you like within your calories" in a way that strikes me as odd and irresponsible -- that "what you like" has no reference to nutrition (and assumes taste preferences are all for "junk" food).
So I'd say that if you didn't like the diet you were eating when focusing primarily on calories, that wasn't because there's anything about CICO that's inconsistent with eating a good diet (I think most of us CICO supporters here try to eat according to what we consider a good diet is), but because of the particular choices you chose to make.
I tend to assume that most people who experiment will find--within a focus on cutting calories-- that there are certain ways to eat that help them feel better and be more satisfied. For me, that's eating a balanced, nutrient conscious diet and not snacking. For others it might be eating more protein (I did this too) or fewer carbs or more fiber, etc. -- lots of different things.
As WinoGelato, I actually think there's less disagreement on this board (well, other than the McDougall-types and the carnivores, perhaps) than these discussions would lead you to believe, and a lot of it IS people talking past each other. You seem to have come in assuming that others don't care about nutrition, that "processed food"="junk food," and that CICO means don't worry about eating a good diet or nutrition. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I'm getting from your posts. (And yeah, like I said upthread, I admit to my own misunderstandings and getting defensive when lectured about bad nutrition from those I don't think are any more concerned about nutrition than I am.)
CICO has one meaning:
If you eat fewer calories than you expend you will lose weight. If you eat more than you expend, then you will gain weight. If you eat the same amount of calories you expend, then you will maintain.
I'm just mystified at the number of people who say that doesn't work for them. There are various ways to estimate CI and CO; and the estimations can be off for some people. You know how you fix that? Accurate logging and tracking of weight to find your actual numbers.
I just don't get people who consider CICO a "way of eating".0 -
@senecarr : Great post!
Reminded me of my fave single ingredient food which meets all the criteria for my macro and micro nutrient needs. The humble egg:
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) (This is just over 2 eggs)
Energy 647 kJ (155 kcal)
Carbohydrates 1.12 g
Fat 10.6 g
Protein 12.6 g
Tryptophan 0.153 g
Threonine 0.604 g
Isoleucine 0.686 g
Leucine 1.075 g
Lysine 0.904 g
Methionine 0.392 g
Cystine 0.292 g
Phenylalanine 0.668 g
Tyrosine 0.513 g
Valine 0.767 g
Arginine 0.755 g
Histidine 0.298 g
Alanine 0.700 g
Aspartic acid 1.264 g
Glutamic acid 1.644 g
Glycine 0.423 g
Proline 0.501 g
Serine 0.936 g
Vitamins
Vitamin A equiv. (19%) 149 μg
Thiamine (B1) (6%) 0.066 mg
Riboflavin (B2) (42%) 0.5 mg
Niacin (B3) (0%) 0.064 mg
Pantothenic acid (B5) (28%) 1.4 mg
Vitamin B6 (9%) 0.121 mg
Folate (B9) (11%) 44 μg
Vitamin B12 (46%) 1.11 μg
Choline (60%) 294 mg
Vitamin D (15%) 87 IU
Vitamin E (7%) 1.03 mg
Vitamin K (0%) 0.3 μg
Minerals
Calcium (5%) 50 mg
Iron (9%) 1.2 mg
Magnesium (3%) 10 mg
Phosphorus (25%) 172 mg
Potassium (3%) 126 mg
Sodium (8%) 124 mg
Zinc (11%) 1.0 mg
Other constituents
Water 75 g
Cholesterol 373 mg
Super keto!
Also: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/118?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=egg+whole+boiled0 -
DorkothyParker wrote: »@senecarr : Great post!
Reminded me of my fave single ingredient food which meets all the criteria for my macro and micro nutrient needs. The humble egg:
Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz) (This is just over 2 eggs)
Energy 647 kJ (155 kcal)
Carbohydrates 1.12 g
Fat 10.6 g
Protein 12.6 g
Tryptophan 0.153 g
Threonine 0.604 g
Isoleucine 0.686 g
Leucine 1.075 g
Lysine 0.904 g
Methionine 0.392 g
Cystine 0.292 g
Phenylalanine 0.668 g
Tyrosine 0.513 g
Valine 0.767 g
Arginine 0.755 g
Histidine 0.298 g
Alanine 0.700 g
Aspartic acid 1.264 g
Glutamic acid 1.644 g
Glycine 0.423 g
Proline 0.501 g
Serine 0.936 g
Vitamins
Vitamin A equiv. (19%) 149 μg
Thiamine (B1) (6%) 0.066 mg
Riboflavin (B2) (42%) 0.5 mg
Niacin (B3) (0%) 0.064 mg
Pantothenic acid (B5) (28%) 1.4 mg
Vitamin B6 (9%) 0.121 mg
Folate (B9) (11%) 44 μg
Vitamin B12 (46%) 1.11 μg
Choline (60%) 294 mg
Vitamin D (15%) 87 IU
Vitamin E (7%) 1.03 mg
Vitamin K (0%) 0.3 μg
Minerals
Calcium (5%) 50 mg
Iron (9%) 1.2 mg
Magnesium (3%) 10 mg
Phosphorus (25%) 172 mg
Potassium (3%) 126 mg
Sodium (8%) 124 mg
Zinc (11%) 1.0 mg
Other constituents
Water 75 g
Cholesterol 373 mg
Super keto!
Also: https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/118?fgcd=&manu=&lfacet=&format=&count=&max=35&offset=&sort=&qlookup=egg+whole+boiled
Vitamin C?
Generally, two foods have a whole nutrition track record - human breast milk, and whale - though it assumes whale includes eating innards and things the whale itself consumed, along with having blubber raw for certain vitamin requirements.0 -
Ah yes. Well certainly I agree that one can't eat just one food exclusively.
Add spinach (and a little extra cheese to up that calcium) to make a tasty scramble.
Still keto!
I've never tried whale. I guess it depends on preparation.0 -
But this is a person asking for suggestions...starting from a blank slate. They got what they asked for. I would suggest that the third post was unnecessary, but I know there are a lot of folks who hate the LC so much that they can't resist.queenliz99 wrote: »
0 -
But this is a person asking for suggestions...starting from a blank slate. They got what they asked for. I would suggest that the third post was unnecessary, but I know there are a lot of folks who hate the LC so much that they can't resist.queenliz99 wrote: »
The third post is mine. Edited to add: I did low carb and it isn't what it is cracked up to be.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
queenliz99 wrote: »
But this is a person asking for suggestions...starting from a blank slate. They got what they asked for. I would suggest that the third post was unnecessary, but I know there are a lot of folks who hate the LC so much that they can't resist.queenliz99 wrote: »
The third post is mine. Edited to add: I did low carb and it isn't what it is cracked up to be.
Me thinks that exactly why it was stated.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
ah yes indeed, a newbie did indeed suggest a ketogenic diet. Didn't see that one.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
ah yes indeed, a newbie did indeed suggest a ketogenic diet. Didn't see that one.
Go further down, not just a newbie. trail nurse0 -
But this is a person asking for suggestions...starting from a blank slate. They got what they asked for. I would suggest that the third post was unnecessary, but I know there are a lot of folks who hate the LC so much that they can't resist.queenliz99 wrote: »
Yep...and Liz posted this (which could be any number of posts) in response to yarwell saying that he can't recall many posts, if any at all, where someone asked an open question and is then urged to go low carb. This shows just how common place it is.
One example does not illustrate how common anything is.
Trawl 25 pages of forum posts and tell us how many you find and you might be onto something.
I found three keto/low carb OPs that received a negative first reply to the effect why are you doing this, don't do this etc. I also found three threads with no negativity. Making 50%. Over to you.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
DorkothyParker wrote: »Yeah, but to be fair, a lot of people also suggested the default MFP macros and CICO. Why is keto "othered" to the point that it cannot be expressed in the same context as other WOE?
CICO is not a whole WOE.
Now maybe it is just my naivete but I think there would be less resistance if people said that they did low carb dieting as their go to way of eating at a deficit. However that isn't how it is conveyed.
An honest question: what should a woe that is simply reduced calories be called? IIFYM doesn't fit? SAD reduced? Not really for those who improved their diets.
I've seen Dr Jason Fung call it Calorie Reduced as Primary (aka CRaP) but I doubt that would go over well with people.
I've also seen it called a nutritous, balanced diet diet that is calorie reduced but most people believe that of their diets so that won't work well...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions