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
-
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?
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.
No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.0 -
Anybody have a thread of a low carber saying "^ not this" or anything of the sort to a first post recommending reduced calorie?
Nevermind. I'll bow out, but this kind of conduct coming from any bias (including low carb) is inappropriate and serves no great purpose. I think it's good to be able to debate it here, but it really has no place in the main forums.0 -
This thread is really not bringing out the best in our community...0
-
Agreed... Well, I'd say it's bringing out the best and the worst.WinoGelato wrote: »This thread is really not bringing out the best in our community...
0 -
I'm out of this thread for the weekend. You guys have a good one and be nice to each other so the thread doesn't get deleted.
For those celebrating the holiday, Happy Easter! I hope everybody has a good weekend.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
Because you don't seem to understand the difference between what a calorie is and what a food is.0 -
Anybody have a thread of a low carber saying "^ not this" or anything of the sort to a first post recommending reduced calorie?
Nevermind. I'll bow out, but this kind of conduct coming from any bias (including low carb) is inappropriate and serves no great purpose. I think it's good to be able to debate it here, but it really has no place in the main forums.
There've been many occasions where people suggested that low carb is the "one true way"(TM) that anyone or at least the majority of people should follow for reasons such as carbs are evil and give you diabetes, are unnecessary therefore bad, you can eat 1000 calories over TDEE and lose fat if you do it, you're never hungry unlike other diets, it's the only way to lose fat because it's carbs that turn to fat not fat because insulin, while we're at it insulin is evil too because it stores fat so never have any carbs to avoid raising it, etc.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »This thread is really not bringing out the best in our community...
QFT
It seems more and more that the debate section is turning into splitting hairs, making judgments, looking to be "right" at all costs, mocking, general goofing off, thread drift to extremes, and using those reduced standards of "debate" against extreme examples that often don't exist on any given thread.
I thought the original post by @yarwell was very good, and showed the potential for a wide variety of eating styles/WOE/diet/whatever people want to call it to include satisfactory amount of veggies. And from there, barring a few reasoned discussions within the mess, it essentially became a mess.
It seems to have turned into threads about debating what might have happened in other threads, and then debating about everyones POV regarding those other threads.
I had hopes that this forum would help find some reasoned level of debate/dialogue/discussion. Many threads I now view as about as informative as the Chit Chat sections.
The only veggies I ate yesterday were the tomatoes and onions on my tacos. And I also ate 1000 calories of cheesecake and ice cream. I was below intake goal, had balanced macros, and hit micro goals as well. I'm just leaving this out here so someone can make an unreasonable argument against many ways to meet food and nutrition goals. But as a disclaimer, I really don't care what anyone else thinks. My doctor is fine with my diet, I'm fine with my diet, and my performance goals have been increasing with my diet.
I hope more people figure out what works for them and their health care providers approve of. The rest is really just noise beyond the N=1 that really matters. But my N=1 only matters to me, and IMO shouldn't be imposed on others.0 -
Low Carb for 4 years..... eat mostly veggies, then dairy, meats, eggs and a little fruit.... Never, ever sweeteners of any kind.
I think it is all in how people frame their Lifestyle0 -
.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »It seems more and more that the debate section is turning into splitting hairs, making judgments, looking to be "right" at all costs, mocking, general goofing off, thread drift to extremes, and using those reduced standards of "debate" against extreme examples that often don't exist on any given thread.
I can understand enjoying and partaking in all of the above, if the debate was about politics, current events, crime statistics, fashion or something along those lines.
But food? Exercise? Seems a bit silly. Especially when it comes to food, which, to me, is love, enjoyment and life itself. For a lot of folks on this site, food is mostly about what to eat to look as good as possible. It's a vanity thing and I get it. It's that for me too, to a large extend. And yeah yeah, I don't expect the health mongers and experts in the debate section to admit to the vanity hypothesis or agree, but yeah, I still think so. No double blind, peer reviewed, academic, evidenced based articles to back this up, sorry. But most people are talking about food and/or exercise at MFP in relation to what their butt or chest looks like. Which is a good reality check and a great reason not to take this site very seriously.
When food is "debated", I'm pretty sure that's a sign we have too much of it available for our own good and it's become a study, a labor, some weird kind of distraction or a point of contention.
Here's a pic of a gorgeous satiating meal, full of vegetables, packed with enough calories for an entire day and containing less than 100 grams of carbohydrates. For purposes of viewing happiness and vegetable calmness.
Well, I think that pretty much just won the whole Internet. And it made me chuckle out loud. Thanks.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »It seems more and more that the debate section is turning into splitting hairs, making judgments, looking to be "right" at all costs, mocking, general goofing off, thread drift to extremes, and using those reduced standards of "debate" against extreme examples that often don't exist on any given thread.
I can understand enjoying and partaking in all of the above, if the debate was about politics, current events, crime statistics, fashion or something along those lines.
But food? Exercise? Seems a bit silly. Especially when it comes to food, which, to me, is love, enjoyment and life itself. For a lot of folks on this site, food is mostly about what to eat to look as good as possible. It's a vanity thing and I get it. It's that for me too, to a large extend. And yeah yeah, I don't expect the health mongers and experts in the debate section to admit to the vanity hypothesis or agree, but yeah, I still think so. No double blind, peer reviewed, academic, evidenced based articles to back this up, sorry. But most people are talking about food and/or exercise at MFP in relation to what their butt or chest looks like. Which is a good reality check and a great reason not to take this site very seriously.
When food is "debated", I'm pretty sure that's a sign we have too much of it available for our own good and it's become a study, a labor, some weird kind of distraction or a point of contention.
Here's a pic of a gorgeous satiating meal, full of vegetables, packed with enough calories for an entire day and containing less than 100 grams of carbohydrates. For purposes of viewing happiness and vegetable calmness.
That's just wrong.
Also either it's the perspective or that meal containing enough calories for an entire day looks pretty small, size wise.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »It seems more and more that the debate section is turning into splitting hairs, making judgments, looking to be "right" at all costs, mocking, general goofing off, thread drift to extremes, and using those reduced standards of "debate" against extreme examples that often don't exist on any given thread.
I can understand enjoying and partaking in all of the above, if the debate was about politics, current events, crime statistics, fashion or something along those lines.
But food? Exercise? Seems a bit silly. Especially when it comes to food, which, to me, is love, enjoyment and life itself. For a lot of folks on this site, food is mostly about what to eat to look as good as possible. It's a vanity thing and I get it. It's that for me too, to a large extend. And yeah yeah, I don't expect the health mongers and experts in the debate section to admit to the vanity hypothesis or agree, but yeah, I still think so. No double blind, peer reviewed, academic, evidenced based articles to back this up, sorry. But most people are talking about food and/or exercise at MFP in relation to what their butt or chest looks like. Which is a good reality check and a great reason not to take this site very seriously.
When food is "debated", I'm pretty sure that's a sign we have too much of it available for our own good and it's become a study, a labor, some weird kind of distraction or a point of contention.
Here's a pic of a gorgeous satiating meal, full of vegetables, packed with enough calories for an entire day and containing less than 100 grams of carbohydrates. For purposes of viewing happiness and vegetable calmness.
That's just wrong.
Also either it's the perspective or that meal containing enough calories for an entire day looks pretty small, size wise.
I totally missed that that was claimed as enough calories for an entire day. Not in my world either. It's a decent size meal, but it's not a day's worth of calories for an adult.
Not unless the lower right compartment of the upper container is full of duck fat0 -
-
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »It seems more and more that the debate section is turning into splitting hairs, making judgments, looking to be "right" at all costs, mocking, general goofing off, thread drift to extremes, and using those reduced standards of "debate" against extreme examples that often don't exist on any given thread.
I can understand enjoying and partaking in all of the above, if the debate was about politics, current events, crime statistics, fashion or something along those lines.
But food? Exercise? Seems a bit silly. Especially when it comes to food, which, to me, is love, enjoyment and life itself. For a lot of folks on this site, food is mostly about what to eat to look as good as possible. It's a vanity thing and I get it. It's that for me too, to a large extend. And yeah yeah, I don't expect the health mongers and experts in the debate section to admit to the vanity hypothesis or agree, but yeah, I still think so. No double blind, peer reviewed, academic, evidenced based articles to back this up, sorry. But most people are talking about food and/or exercise at MFP in relation to what their butt or chest looks like. Which is a good reality check and a great reason not to take this site very seriously.
When food is "debated", I'm pretty sure that's a sign we have too much of it available for our own good and it's become a study, a labor, some weird kind of distraction or a point of contention.
Here's a pic of a gorgeous satiating meal, full of vegetables, packed with enough calories for an entire day and containing less than 100 grams of carbohydrates. For purposes of viewing happiness and vegetable calmness.
That's just wrong.
Also either it's the perspective or that meal containing enough calories for an entire day looks pretty small, size wise.
It's a 9.8 oz. of chopped dark meat roasted chicken with skin, 3/4 of a pound of string beans and carrots sautéed in 2 tablespoons of olive oil, a cup of condensed, pureed butternut squash, 6 ounces of blackberries, a half cup of roasted, salted, deluxe mixed nuts and one third of a cup of cream to be mixed in with the vials of coffee crystals, unsweetened cocoa powder and Splenda sweetened hazelnut syrup for a hot decaf mocha.
1,624 calories, 99 grams of carbohydrate, 97 grams of fat and 101 grams of protein.
Maybe not enough nourishment for Marky Mark wearing a mouse head, but it covers the nutritional bases for me.
Oh, the stuff in the back was also part of it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »It seems more and more that the debate section is turning into splitting hairs, making judgments, looking to be "right" at all costs, mocking, general goofing off, thread drift to extremes, and using those reduced standards of "debate" against extreme examples that often don't exist on any given thread.
I can understand enjoying and partaking in all of the above, if the debate was about politics, current events, crime statistics, fashion or something along those lines.
But food? Exercise? Seems a bit silly. Especially when it comes to food, which, to me, is love, enjoyment and life itself. For a lot of folks on this site, food is mostly about what to eat to look as good as possible. It's a vanity thing and I get it. It's that for me too, to a large extend. And yeah yeah, I don't expect the health mongers and experts in the debate section to admit to the vanity hypothesis or agree, but yeah, I still think so. No double blind, peer reviewed, academic, evidenced based articles to back this up, sorry. But most people are talking about food and/or exercise at MFP in relation to what their butt or chest looks like. Which is a good reality check and a great reason not to take this site very seriously.
When food is "debated", I'm pretty sure that's a sign we have too much of it available for our own good and it's become a study, a labor, some weird kind of distraction or a point of contention.
Here's a pic of a gorgeous satiating meal, full of vegetables, packed with enough calories for an entire day and containing less than 100 grams of carbohydrates. For purposes of viewing happiness and vegetable calmness.
That's just wrong.
Also either it's the perspective or that meal containing enough calories for an entire day looks pretty small, size wise.
It's a 9.8 oz. of chopped dark meat roasted chicken with skin, 3/4 of a pound of string beans and carrots sautéed in 2 tablespoons of olive oil, a cup of condensed, pureed butternut squash, 6 ounces of blackberries, a half cup of roasted, salted, deluxe mixed nuts and one third of a cup of cream to be mixed in with the vials of coffee crystals, unsweetened cocoa powder and Splenda sweetened hazelnut syrup for a hot decaf mocha.
1,624 calories, 99 grams of carbohydrate, 97 grams of fat and 101 grams of protein.
Maybe not enough nourishment for Marky Mark wearing a mouse head, but it covers the nutritional bases for me.
Interesting. Honestly, that's sad to me, but that's because we eat differently. A meal that size that pounds out that many calories would not be something I would be happy about. It also still wouldn't be even close to my maintenance calories...even without being Marky Marky with a mouse head, but I am sure that was mentioned just to make fun of another poster so bygones.
I also find your macro breakdown interesting as it is much different than most people who define themselves as low carb. It's definitely not LCHF. That level of carbs would usually be considered a cause for concern for most in the low carb group.
But we all find diets that work for us.
To be honest, this was the main reason I could not last on this diet. The amount of food is simply miniscule compared to what I usually eat, which left me physically and mentally starving. This meal is even considered large, maybe twice as large, compared to the volume of food I had to eat on a <20 carb diet. I was too lazy to think so I had this generated for today (leaving 300 calories for whatever else I feel like having half of which will most probably be tomatoes and the other half might be popcorn) and compared to what I had on keto, any single meal of these would be comparable in volume and weight to a whole keto day, if not larger.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yep, I am a volume eater as well. It was definitely something to adjust to when I did a keto diet. I did find ways to continue to make it work. On those days when I wanted to eat a lot...I would have a big bowl of eggbeaters with some spinach and mushrooms in it. I also did net 50 grams though, not 20 grams. I don't think I could make that work and not want to stab myself with a spoon.
Agreed. And I guess that's another reason why I find myself eating larger quantities of vegetables (enough that I could never follow keto). If it's a liquidy lunch (soup or stew), then I'm up at 500g ish as well; if it's just a lean protein with seasoning, it's only about 150g of meat, but I add 160-180g of a vegetable (usually frozen green beans).0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »It seems more and more that the debate section is turning into splitting hairs, making judgments, looking to be "right" at all costs, mocking, general goofing off, thread drift to extremes, and using those reduced standards of "debate" against extreme examples that often don't exist on any given thread.
I can understand enjoying and partaking in all of the above, if the debate was about politics, current events, crime statistics, fashion or something along those lines.
But food? Exercise? Seems a bit silly. Especially when it comes to food, which, to me, is love, enjoyment and life itself. For a lot of folks on this site, food is mostly about what to eat to look as good as possible. It's a vanity thing and I get it. It's that for me too, to a large extend. And yeah yeah, I don't expect the health mongers and experts in the debate section to admit to the vanity hypothesis or agree, but yeah, I still think so. No double blind, peer reviewed, academic, evidenced based articles to back this up, sorry. But most people are talking about food and/or exercise at MFP in relation to what their butt or chest looks like. Which is a good reality check and a great reason not to take this site very seriously.
When food is "debated", I'm pretty sure that's a sign we have too much of it available for our own good and it's become a study, a labor, some weird kind of distraction or a point of contention.
Here's a pic of a gorgeous satiating meal, full of vegetables, packed with enough calories for an entire day and containing less than 100 grams of carbohydrates. For purposes of viewing happiness and vegetable calmness.
That's just wrong.
Also either it's the perspective or that meal containing enough calories for an entire day looks pretty small, size wise.
It's a 9.8 oz. of chopped dark meat roasted chicken with skin, 3/4 of a pound of string beans and carrots sautéed in 2 tablespoons of olive oil, a cup of condensed, pureed butternut squash, 6 ounces of blackberries, a half cup of roasted, salted, deluxe mixed nuts and one third of a cup of cream to be mixed in with the vials of coffee crystals, unsweetened cocoa powder and Splenda sweetened hazelnut syrup for a hot decaf mocha.
1,624 calories, 99 grams of carbohydrate, 97 grams of fat and 101 grams of protein.
Maybe not enough nourishment for Marky Mark wearing a mouse head, but it covers the nutritional bases for me.
Went over it in another thread, it is Jeff Seid with a mouse head. Mark Wahlberg isn't shabby, but he's nowhere near that -dose- err, level.0 -
True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.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?
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.
No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.
If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
0 -
True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.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?
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.
No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.
If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
Whether the knowledge is needed or not, there plenty of low carbers that seem to feel that biologically and mathematically, a deficit itself is not required. There are authors like Taubes that tout the insulin hypothesis.0 -
True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.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?
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.
No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.
If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
I think that varies a lot. I've read a lot from low carbers and paleo types who stop losing (I used to be interested in paleo, so followed it at various sites and podcasts, but I've seen it on this forum and offline too). From my own experience in doing paleo and dropping my carbs some, it makes sense, as at first you almost accidentally cut calories a lot, as you cut out a lot of what you were eating -- and this will be more extreme for people who tended to overconsume starches or sugars, which wasn't so much me -- and don't know what to replace it with. For example, lots of people do it and still seem scared of fats or stick to normal portion sizes of proteins (initially when I did paleo I still was measuring out 3 oz of meat, which made no real sense calorie-wise). Plus, for many of us motivation when starting out tends to remove any hunger feelings (I am someone who did 900 calories without realizing it 'til I logged on MFP and got over the stupidity).
Typically that wears off as you get used to eating more of the higher cal foods you are able to eat, and adjust to the new diet. For example, I wasn't eating much cheese when I first was dieting and had lower carbs (well, part of that was I was doing paleo at first, but more was because I think of cheese as a food that should be eaten sparingly). Had I kept doing lower carb and adjusted to eating more high fat meats and cheese, I could easily go way beyond my maintenance calories. Indeed, I attribute a big chunk of my weight gain to the fact I can consume an insane number of calories in high quality cheese (my favorite after-dinner snack, far beyond any sweet, and something commonly available at get-togethers I go to and so on). I can also easily eat far more calories than I could in steak or higher fat cuts of beef (prime rib, even a less lean burger, no bun), and that's despite the fact that I (sacrilege, I know) don't care that much about bacon -- of course, part of my irritation with bacon is that it is completely unsatiating for me.
I expect there are some for whom this is not true, or who really primarily overate due to appetite (never my issue) and found a huge change with keto, but given how common hedonic eating is I expect even that gets harder to do over time for most, as one starts taking full advantage of the pleasures of the permitted foods, and so requires mindfulness (which is a form of watching calories). At least if one has foodie or gourmand tendencies at all.
BecomingBane and I discussed veganism, as I said my experience (awhile back) was that unlike vegetarianism I'd found that I lost weight even when not trying when doing a plant-based diet, since I tend to get lots of calories from foods that include dairy and eggs. He said that he found that so at first but then adjusted to the treats you could eat and so after time it wasn't much different. I think that's probably common with all kinds of diets that involve significant alterations in what foods are included.0 -
True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.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?
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.
No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.
If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
Whether the knowledge is needed or not, there plenty of low carbers that seem to feel that biologically and mathematically, a deficit itself is not required. There are authors like Taubes that tout the insulin hypothesis.
I don't think that is entirely true. Sure there are a few who don't understand that CO must be greater than CI, but I I don't think that is the point most of us make. I think the more common statements are that the diet is often satiating so a lower CI is easier to achieve, and that the diet raises CO for some making a previously required low caloric level to be not required.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
True, but it is not generally required knowledge for the practical application of this particular WOE.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?
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.
No reason why someone just counting carbs should pretend they are calorie counting, is there ? Or do they have to be "resisted" or assimilated if they don't.
If someone is losing weight they are in a caloric deficit....whether you are counting the calories or not.
Whether the knowledge is needed or not, there plenty of low carbers that seem to feel that biologically and mathematically, a deficit itself is not required. There are authors like Taubes that tout the insulin hypothesis.
I don't think that is entirely true. Sure there are a few who don't understand that CO must be greater than CI, but I I don't think that is the point most of us make. I think the more common statements are that the diet is often satiating so a lower CI is easier to achieve, and that the diet raises CO for some making a previously required low caloric level to be not required.
Satiety can definitely help lower CI, but going LCHF would not increase CO. If anything, it will decrease it due to the lower TEF of fat as compared to protein and carbs. If anything raises CO, it's a subsequent increase in activity by trying to live a healthier lifestyle.0 -
Hypothetically, you could increase CO at the beginning of a ketogenic diet, because of ketones excreted in urine. That's CI that get wasted. The ketones excreted slows down after an initial period of adaptation.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