low carb Does work!!!!
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Thedietdoctor. People should read this website with a critical eye. The information is dishonest at best.
Your proof?
I know for a fact that he is lying. Takes one instance to disprove a claim. I personally gained weight on a ketogenic diet with a carb level even lower than his (less than 20 g of carbs a day) because I found it hard to keep my calories under control with the sort of hunger I had.
This is not a proof, I will not be responding further.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Thedietdoctor. People should read this website with a critical eye. The information is dishonest at best.
Your proof?
If your source wouldn't fly in a university homework, don't use it in a serious discussion about something scientific.
This is not a proof, I will not be responding further.1 -
Chitchatkat wrote: »YES! LCHF (emphasis on high fat) absolutely does work...AND it's the healthiest way to eat because it suppresses the insulin surges caused by carbs. LCHF eating heals the body and nourishes the brain. It gets our bodies to burn stored fat for fuel, which leads to inches lost gradually. I highly recommend that you read Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes. He explains the science behind lchf. Don't buy into the calorie counting diets that include carbs...they're unhealthy, unsustainable, & don't work. I lost 34 lbs post-menopause at 56. I'm 58 now & feel younger & more energetic than ever.
Sadly this is all wrong...
2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Thedietdoctor. People should read this website with a critical eye. The information is dishonest at best.
Your proof?
I know for a fact that he is lying. Takes one instance to disprove a claim. I personally gained weight on a ketogenic diet with a carb level even lower than his (less than 20 g of carbs a day) because I found it hard to keep my calories under control with the sort of hunger I had.
This is not a proof, I will not be responding further.
All proof needed to refute a "All X do Y" claim is finding 1 single instance of an X where Y is not given. That IS proof.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Thedietdoctor. People should read this website with a critical eye. The information is dishonest at best.
Your proof?
I know for a fact that he is lying. Takes one instance to disprove a claim. I personally gained weight on a ketogenic diet with a carb level even lower than his (less than 20 g of carbs a day) because I found it hard to keep my calories under control with the sort of hunger I had.
This is not a proof, I will not be responding further.
The photos on his first page were photoshopped. The gal with the white shirt has the same wrinkles but her belly was erased. I didn't need to look any further. Oh yep, I can overeat fat not gain weight, not ever.2 -
Chitchatkat wrote: »YES! LCHF (emphasis on high fat) absolutely does work...AND it's the healthiest way to eat because it suppresses the insulin surges caused by carbs. LCHF eating heals the body and nourishes the brain. It gets our bodies to burn stored fat for fuel, which leads to inches lost gradually. I highly recommend that you read Why We Get Fat by Gary Taubes. He explains the science behind lchf. Don't buy into the calorie counting diets that include carbs...they're unhealthy, unsustainable, & don't work. I lost 34 lbs post-menopause at 56. I'm 58 now & feel younger & more energetic than ever.
Sadly this is all wrong...
That should be quoted in the "Why do people detest low carb" thread because it's a prime example of all the reasons.4 -
http://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
People with jobs, maybe?
Interestingly, LCHF is usually cheaper to eat at high calories on (assuming that you cook for yourself), because the whole fat phobia thing still lingering tends to keep fattier meat choices cheaper. Compare the edible yield cost if chicken wings and thighs to breasts, then realize that said wings and thighs are also far more calorically dense than the breast. Now do the same thing with say 93/7 ground beef, vs. 73/27. Now again with ribs vs. pork loin. And once more with whole brisket vs. trimmed. Whole eggs vs. egg whites. I can do this all day.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »http://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
People with jobs, maybe?
Interestingly, LCHF is usually cheaper to eat at high calories on (assuming that you cook for yourself), because the whole fat phobia thing still lingering tends to keep fattier meat choices cheaper. Compare the edible yield cost if chicken wings and thighs to breasts, then realize that said wings and thighs are also far more calorically dense than the breast. Now do the same thing with say 93/7 ground beef, vs. 73/27. Now again with ribs vs. pork loin. And once more with whole brisket vs. trimmed. Whole eggs vs. egg whites. I can do this all day.
Agreed on the price of protein, you get more bang for your buck. But the real crux of her argument is the eating of vast amounts of calories(fat) and not gaining because of it being fat.1 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »http://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
People with jobs, maybe?
Interestingly, LCHF is usually cheaper to eat at high calories on (assuming that you cook for yourself), because the whole fat phobia thing still lingering tends to keep fattier meat choices cheaper. Compare the edible yield cost if chicken wings and thighs to breasts, then realize that said wings and thighs are also far more calorically dense than the breast. Now do the same thing with say 93/7 ground beef, vs. 73/27. Now again with ribs vs. pork loin. And once more with whole brisket vs. trimmed. Whole eggs vs. egg whites. I can do this all day.
Agreed on the price of protein, you get more bang for your buck. But the real crux of her argument is the eating of vast amounts of calories(fat) and not gaining because of it being fat.
Oh yeah, no that part is bullcrap. Hell, I'm currently running a keto bulk, and gaining pretty consistently at between 2400-3000 kcals per day, lifting six days per week, and hitting 10k steps outside of that, on a nigh daily basis. I'm staying sub-20 on carbs, and running a 65/30 split on f/p.
Granted, I was in hardcore skinnyfat territory (5'10", 150.3 lbs. start, now 157.4 lbs.) after this past year's sedentary hellcut at 1450 kcal/day.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »http://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
People with jobs, maybe?
Interestingly, LCHF is usually cheaper to eat at high calories on (assuming that you cook for yourself), because the whole fat phobia thing still lingering tends to keep fattier meat choices cheaper. Compare the edible yield cost if chicken wings and thighs to breasts, then realize that said wings and thighs are also far more calorically dense than the breast. Now do the same thing with say 93/7 ground beef, vs. 73/27. Now again with ribs vs. pork loin. And once more with whole brisket vs. trimmed. Whole eggs vs. egg whites. I can do this all day.
Agreed on the price of protein, you get more bang for your buck. But the real crux of her argument is the eating of vast amounts of calories(fat) and not gaining because of it being fat.
Oh yeah, no that part is bullcrap. Hell, I'm currently running a keto bulk, and gaining pretty consistently at between 2400-3000 kcals per day, lifting six days per week, and hitting 10k steps outside of that, on a nigh daily basis. I'm staying sub-20 on carbs, and running a 65/30 split on f/p.
Granted, I was in hardcore skinnyfat territory (5'10", 150.3 lbs. start, now 157.4 lbs.) after this past year's sedentary hellcut at 1450 kcal/day.
Thank you for clarifying.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »http://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
People with jobs, maybe?
Interestingly, LCHF is usually cheaper to eat at high calories on (assuming that you cook for yourself), because the whole fat phobia thing still lingering tends to keep fattier meat choices cheaper. Compare the edible yield cost if chicken wings and thighs to breasts, then realize that said wings and thighs are also far more calorically dense than the breast. Now do the same thing with say 93/7 ground beef, vs. 73/27. Now again with ribs vs. pork loin. And once more with whole brisket vs. trimmed. Whole eggs vs. egg whites. I can do this all day.
Agreed on the price of protein, you get more bang for your buck. But the real crux of her argument is the eating of vast amounts of calories(fat) and not gaining because of it being fat.
Oh yeah, no that part is bullcrap. Hell, I'm currently running a keto bulk, and gaining pretty consistently at between 2400-3000 kcals per day, lifting six days per week, and hitting 10k steps outside of that, on a nigh daily basis. I'm staying sub-20 on carbs, and running a 65/30 split on f/p.
Granted, I was in hardcore skinnyfat territory (5'10", 150.3 lbs. start, now 157.4 lbs.) after this past year's sedentary hellcut at 1450 kcal/day.
But, but you CAN'T gain weight on keto!3 -
It may be that athletes also need to balance the increase in protein consumption with what macronutrient is reduced. The prudent advice for athletes would be to focus on reducing intakes of lipids to allow carbohydrate intakes to achieve performance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213385/#CR80 -
http://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
You low calorie and nothing else people. I giggle every time0 -
stevencloser wrote: »moonlights wrote: »I'm 5'2", female, I eat less than 20g carbs a day and between 1800 and 2000 calories - most of my calories are from fat. According to the guidelines on here I shouldn't lose eating at this calorie level but I lost 50lbs in about 8 months. When I eat carbs and cut calories I tend to gain - and I'm hoping to go back to low carb permanently now after some bad emotional eating. I feel better and more energetic on low carb and once I'm at goal I can increase carbs to 100g ish and still maintain. Ymmv but that's been my experience. Low carb isn't easy to stick to but neither is low calorie, for me. I'm starving all the time on low calorie and rarely hungry at all on low carb. It's pretty much a miracle diet if you ask me.
If you magically gain weight when you eat carbs (and CUT calories), how on earth do you propose to NOT gain weight when you increase your carbs again in maintenance? Will being at your "goal" weight automatically keep your weight stable? Is 100 grams of carbs the magic carb number to stay at and maintain weight?
Help me understand your reasoning.
Good catch.
Did you READ IT? I propose you reread then ask your question again because your question doesn't make any sense. And like I said I do not agree or disagree it's just very interesting. A lot of you people post up here like you all are either scientist or dietitian or nutritionist. It really makes me smile. There's more than one way to skin a cat meaning there's more than one way to lose weight. Don't jump down other people's throat because they find another way to do so.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »moonlights wrote: »I'm 5'2", female, I eat less than 20g carbs a day and between 1800 and 2000 calories - most of my calories are from fat. According to the guidelines on here I shouldn't lose eating at this calorie level but I lost 50lbs in about 8 months. When I eat carbs and cut calories I tend to gain - and I'm hoping to go back to low carb permanently now after some bad emotional eating. I feel better and more energetic on low carb and once I'm at goal I can increase carbs to 100g ish and still maintain. Ymmv but that's been my experience. Low carb isn't easy to stick to but neither is low calorie, for me. I'm starving all the time on low calorie and rarely hungry at all on low carb. It's pretty much a miracle diet if you ask me.
If you magically gain weight when you eat carbs (and CUT calories), how on earth do you propose to NOT gain weight when you increase your carbs again in maintenance? Will being at your "goal" weight automatically keep your weight stable? Is 100 grams of carbs the magic carb number to stay at and maintain weight?
Help me understand your reasoning.
Good catch.
Did you READ IT? I propose you reread then ask your question again because your question doesn't make any sense. And like I said I do not agree or disagree it's just very interesting. A lot of you people post up here like you all are either scientist or dietitian or nutritionist. It really makes me smile. There's more than one way to skin a cat meaning there's more than one way to lose weight. Don't jump down other people's throat because they find another way to do so.
there is only one way to lose weight...consume less calories than you burn...
how you apply that can be different but don't think for one minute that HFLC or low carb in general guarantees weight loss. Over maintenance calories you will gain...
and let's be clear...athletes and larger people don't gain on 5k calories a day...regular people not so much.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »moonlights wrote: »I'm 5'2", female, I eat less than 20g carbs a day and between 1800 and 2000 calories - most of my calories are from fat. According to the guidelines on here I shouldn't lose eating at this calorie level but I lost 50lbs in about 8 months. When I eat carbs and cut calories I tend to gain - and I'm hoping to go back to low carb permanently now after some bad emotional eating. I feel better and more energetic on low carb and once I'm at goal I can increase carbs to 100g ish and still maintain. Ymmv but that's been my experience. Low carb isn't easy to stick to but neither is low calorie, for me. I'm starving all the time on low calorie and rarely hungry at all on low carb. It's pretty much a miracle diet if you ask me.
If you magically gain weight when you eat carbs (and CUT calories), how on earth do you propose to NOT gain weight when you increase your carbs again in maintenance? Will being at your "goal" weight automatically keep your weight stable? Is 100 grams of carbs the magic carb number to stay at and maintain weight?
Help me understand your reasoning.
Good catch.
Did you READ IT? I propose you reread then ask your question again because your question doesn't make any sense. And like I said I do not agree or disagree it's just very interesting. A lot of you people post up here like you all are either scientist or dietitian or nutritionist. It really makes me smile. There's more than one way to skin a cat meaning there's more than one way to lose weight. Don't jump down other people's throat because they find another way to do so.
there is only one way to lose weight...consume less calories than you burn...
how you apply that can be different but don't think for one minute that HFLC or low carb in general guarantees weight loss. Over maintenance calories you will gain...
and let's be clear...athletes and larger people don't gain on 5k calories a day...regular people not so much.
0 -
http://www.dietdoctor.com/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet
Very interesting. People first believed that the world was flat. I'm just saying. It's a lot of different ways to look at things. Not defending or undefending this link. It is interesting though.
lololol Who in the h.e.ll could even afford to eat 5k+ calories a day? So much horse crap.
You low calorie and nothing else people. I giggle every time
You eat the same amount of calories to lose whether you do HFLC or not.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »moonlights wrote: »I'm 5'2", female, I eat less than 20g carbs a day and between 1800 and 2000 calories - most of my calories are from fat. According to the guidelines on here I shouldn't lose eating at this calorie level but I lost 50lbs in about 8 months. When I eat carbs and cut calories I tend to gain - and I'm hoping to go back to low carb permanently now after some bad emotional eating. I feel better and more energetic on low carb and once I'm at goal I can increase carbs to 100g ish and still maintain. Ymmv but that's been my experience. Low carb isn't easy to stick to but neither is low calorie, for me. I'm starving all the time on low calorie and rarely hungry at all on low carb. It's pretty much a miracle diet if you ask me.
If you magically gain weight when you eat carbs (and CUT calories), how on earth do you propose to NOT gain weight when you increase your carbs again in maintenance? Will being at your "goal" weight automatically keep your weight stable? Is 100 grams of carbs the magic carb number to stay at and maintain weight?
Help me understand your reasoning.
Good catch.
Did you READ IT? I propose you reread then ask your question again because your question doesn't make any sense. And like I said I do not agree or disagree it's just very interesting. A lot of you people post up here like you all are either scientist or dietitian or nutritionist. It really makes me smile. There's more than one way to skin a cat meaning there's more than one way to lose weight. Don't jump down other people's throat because they find another way to do so.
READ WHAT? The poster quoted in this series of comments claims that at 5'2 they can eat b/w 1800-2000 cals on a LCHF diet and lose weight, but that if they eat same amount of calories and don't restrict carbs they would gain. Yet that poster also says that when she reaches her goal weight, she plans to increase carbs, so the question is that if carbs magically make her gain weight at a certain calorie level, then what is her plan for maintaining that goal weight?
The point many of us are trying to make is that regardless of what carb level a person aims for, it is a calorie deficit that results in weight loss.4 -
Whatever vehicle you choose to reach your weight management destination, CICO is *always* the gas in the tank.6
-
It may be that athletes also need to balance the increase in protein consumption with what macronutrient is reduced. The prudent advice for athletes would be to focus on reducing intakes of lipids to allow carbohydrate intakes to achieve performance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213385/#CR8
depends on the kind of performance. for endurance, keto seems to work better. (and I mean ultra endurance)0 -
It may be that athletes also need to balance the increase in protein consumption with what macronutrient is reduced. The prudent advice for athletes would be to focus on reducing intakes of lipids to allow carbohydrate intakes to achieve performance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213385/#CR8
depends on the kind of performance. for endurance, keto seems to work better. (and I mean ultra endurance)
Based on what?
Yes, there are endurance athletes that are keto but I have yet to find that the general finding is keto is better.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »But, but you CAN'T gain weight on keto!
Did someone seriously advocating LCHF actually say that? Or was it really shorthand for "I personally am never hungry enough to ram in enough calories to gain weight on LCHF"?0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Whatever vehicle you choose to reach your weight management destination, CICO is *always* the gas in the tank.
CICO is hard for most end users to work with on both the CI and the CO sides of the ledger - but of course that doesn't mean the theory itself is fallacious. I don't think most serious LCHF proponents would reject CICO as erroneous.1 -
It may be that athletes also need to balance the increase in protein consumption with what macronutrient is reduced. The prudent advice for athletes would be to focus on reducing intakes of lipids to allow carbohydrate intakes to achieve performance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213385/#CR8
depends on the kind of performance. for endurance, keto seems to work better. (and I mean ultra endurance)
Really?
When I supported my mate doing a 24 hour cycle race it was a wall to wall carb-fest.
But as he only managed 441 miles what does he know.
Do you mean possible rather than better?
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »But, but you CAN'T gain weight on keto!
Did someone seriously advocating LCHF actually say that? Or was it really shorthand for "I personally am never hungry enough to ram in enough calories to gain weight on LCHF"?
Several people have stated on these forums that they gained weight eating all foods at 1800 calories a day. After switching to LCHF, they can lose eating more (say 2200 calories).
When asked to clarify and if they just had trouble eating less when they ate carbs and couldn't stay within their goal or if they consistently ate under 2200 when on LCHF, they denied it. They insist that there is some kind of magical properties to LCHF that allows weight loss at higher calorie counts.
Not true of everyone who is LCHF, but I have seen it said.4 -
Several people have stated on these forums that they gained weight eating all foods at 1800 calories a day. After switching to LCHF, they can lose eating more (say 2200 calories).
When asked to clarify and if they just had trouble eating less when they ate carbs and couldn't stay within their goal or if they consistently ate under 2200 when on LCHF, they denied it. They insist that there is some kind of magical properties to LCHF that allows weight loss at higher calorie counts.
Hmm. Sounds like cold fusion.
It seems as if there's enough room for error (even apart from subconscious personal bias) in those CI computations to fit a foot-long hot dog sideways.
For example, as concluded by one article that catalogs the ways in which calorie counts can wander astray,The discrepancies between the number on the label and the calories that are actually available in our food, combined with individual variations in how we metabolise that food, can add up to much more than the 200 calories a day that nutritionists often advise cutting in order to lose weight.
0 -
Several people have stated on these forums that they gained weight eating all foods at 1800 calories a day. After switching to LCHF, they can lose eating more (say 2200 calories).
When asked to clarify and if they just had trouble eating less when they ate carbs and couldn't stay within their goal or if they consistently ate under 2200 when on LCHF, they denied it. They insist that there is some kind of magical properties to LCHF that allows weight loss at higher calorie counts.
Hmm. Sounds like cold fusion.
It seems as if there's enough room for error (even apart from subconscious personal bias) in those CI computations to fit a foot-long hot dog sideways.
For example, as concluded by one article that catalogs the ways in which calorie counts can wander astray,The discrepancies between the number on the label and the calories that are actually available in our food, combined with individual variations in how we metabolise that food, can add up to much more than the 200 calories a day that nutritionists often advise cutting in order to lose weight.
And I think that's the general consensus in these situations. There are inaccuracies in the logging, and if people are doing things like eating more vegetables then it may be that the inaccuracies matter less than when they forgot about that third slice of bread (or pie) that they ate. But people seem to insist that they are accurate and then propagate the fallacy.
And that I think is what ends up starting the low carb/moderation feud. No one cares what you eat and keeps you satiated; but if you insist to someone else that you can increase your calories as long as you stop eating sugar, people get annoyed. Because the chances of someone following that advice and actually losing are slim to none.2 -
Several people have stated on these forums that they gained weight eating all foods at 1800 calories a day. After switching to LCHF, they can lose eating more (say 2200 calories).
When asked to clarify and if they just had trouble eating less when they ate carbs and couldn't stay within their goal or if they consistently ate under 2200 when on LCHF, they denied it. They insist that there is some kind of magical properties to LCHF that allows weight loss at higher calorie counts.
Hmm. Sounds like cold fusion.
It seems as if there's enough room for error (even apart from subconscious personal bias) in those CI computations to fit a foot-long hot dog sideways.
For example, as concluded by one article that catalogs the ways in which calorie counts can wander astray,The discrepancies between the number on the label and the calories that are actually available in our food, combined with individual variations in how we metabolise that food, can add up to much more than the 200 calories a day that nutritionists often advise cutting in order to lose weight.
It also doesn't help that foods touted as "healthy", which either directly or indirectly target those trying to lose weight, are often the worst offenders when it comes to labeling shenanigans, and are often on the carb-heavy side, just being a slightly modified version of something from SAD. In such cases, obviously CICO still applies, but when you don't have the correct data for the input, things are going to go wonky.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838242/
18% and 8% don't seem like much, until you realize it's VERY easy to get fat eating 18% (or 8%) over your maintenance every day (1800 kcal vs. 2124, and 1800 vs. 1944 respectively) for an extended period of time, especially for sedentary people. The funky part, is that 18% is still within the passable guidelines, which is ridiculous. Some of the worst restaurant offenders were as high as double the stated amount.3 -
Saying low carb does work is very much like saying red automobiles do work.
Of course it does, if your calories out are less than your calories in. Low carbers get the benefit of meat being so difficult to digest that 40% of the available energy in meat is used already to get the remaining 60 percent. It is that 40% of lost energy that low carbers use to claim that CICO doesn't work. Blue cars work, too.2 -
1
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
- 176K 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
- 96.4K 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