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
-
lithezebra wrote: »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.
So excretion would be high enough to offset the difference between diets, assumption went from a higher carb diet to Keto? And how long we talking? Adaptation is 2-3 weeks to become fully adapted correct?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.
Yeah, I'd have to agree with shell1005. That would not satisfy me for a day. Not even close. And it's 400 cals above what I eat on a non-exercise day to boot - though I may be bumping that up soon. On Trendweight it looks like I may be losing quite a bit faster than intended (oops).
That type of diet would not work for me at all, though obviously it works great for others.
I mean, don't get me wrong, most of the things in that pic are things I'd be happy to eat with slight modification - swapping for leaner meats and ditching almost all of the oil (hate oily veg) and cream. Add in a few sunny side up eggs and some dry toast to dip in the yolks, and I'd be pretty good. Better if there were room for some mushrooms and cherry tomatoes as well.
The thing is, even when I eat some dessert because I have the room to spare it's not that unusual for me to be < 100g carbs total. I don't consider that low carb, thought that was < 50g. I'd have thought 75-150g carbs to be moderate.
ETA: And ditching the condensed pureed squash (never heard of such a thing) for cubed, roasted squash. Very few nuts, too - and those would be as half a serving of nut butter (because I like a smaller amt than most seem to).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.
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.
I had a fast weight loss with LCHF which could not be accounted for by my calorie deficit. I was eating 1500kcal and lost 40 lbs in just over four months to get to a mid BMI. I now eat around 2000-2500 kcal per day and am sedentary, not even coaching any sports recently, and I am still slowly losing.... By slowly I mean about 1/2 a pound per month. To me that looks like a very LCHF either raised my CO, or my TDEE is higher than 2500kcal, or there actually is some magic in the diet.
It seems to happen to a fair number of other low carbers too. It doesn't appear to be just me.2 -
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.
I had a fast weight loss with LCHF which could not be accounted for by my calorie deficit. I was eating 1500kcal and lost 40 lbs in just over four months to get to a mid BMI. I now eat around 2000-2500 kcal per day and am sedentary, not even coaching any sports recently, and I am still slowly losing.... By slowly I mean about 1/2 a pound per month. To me that looks like a very LCHF either raised my CO, or my TDEE is higher than 2500kcal, or there actually is some magic in the diet.
It seems to happen to a fair number of other low carbers too. It doesn't appear to be just me.
It seems to happen to none with access to metabolic wards.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.
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.
I had a fast weight loss with LCHF which could not be accounted for by my calorie deficit. I was eating 1500kcal and lost 40 lbs in just over four months to get to a mid BMI. I now eat around 2000-2500 kcal per day and am sedentary, not even coaching any sports recently, and I am still slowly losing.... By slowly I mean about 1/2 a pound per month. To me that looks like a very LCHF either raised my CO, or my TDEE is higher than 2500kcal, or there actually is some magic in the diet.
It seems to happen to a fair number of other low carbers too. It doesn't appear to be just me.
Well, you're either peeing/pooping out an obscene amount of extra calories, which I can't imagine a healthy body would ever want to do under any circumstances, or your CO somehow got higher in another way. Assuming your intake is accurate.0 -
I really AM a special snowflake? Yeah....LOL Who knows.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions