Why does everybody detest low carb diets? They are the only thing that works for me
Options
Replies
-
LaceyBirds wrote: »This is why I have a problem with low-carb diets - it is because the people following it attribute these improvements to eating low-carb. Yet there are people who do the same thing by reducing calories and eating plenty of carbs. I am one of them. I've lost 93 pounds from my highest weight and my cholesterol, triglycerides and blood pressure all improved immensely. I was on two blood pressure/heart rate meds, and a statin for cholesterol, and am now off of all of them. My blood pressure is normal to low-normal now. I don't exercise. I attribute these improvements to three things, with the most important being weight loss, followed by some (but not many) changes in what I ate (cutting out most mayo and eating more avocado and salmon for the cholesterol), and by cutting my sodium to 1500 mg. per day.
Thanks for using me as an example of the misguided people who are "following low-carb diets". However, you didn't include the rest of what I was saying in my post, and as a consequence created an unfair and incomplete impression of what I was saying:If it works for you, go for it and ignore the naysayers. Too many people here think they're experts and try to have their noses stuck firmly in other peoples' bidness where they don't belong. ... But I found I needed to add calorie counting for the accountability. I've since increased my carb intake; my weight loss has slowed to a crawl, but I'm only 15 lbs from my final goal weight. Today I do what I'd call reduced carb plus calorie counting and walking for exercise. I'm hoping to get back into weight training again soon but finding time has been a problem.0 -
sbubenchik wrote: »“You are so young my son, my son, and, as the years go by, time will change and even reverse many of your present opinions…”
–Plato
Yeah I'm my opinions will change over the years about many things. I'm not your son, I have 5 kids of my own and one in high school. How young do you think I actually am?lol running the body efficiently is not an opinion thing, it's a scientific thing. You're getting a little deep for a conversation about low carbs lol
out of everything in this all over the place thread this is the funniest to me. Do you not know who plato is... do you really not get hes not calling you his son... like.. really?
also threads like this make my 8 years of school and my masters in nutrion almost embarrassing. just because you read something on the internet doesnt make it true. carbs do not "scientifically" make someone hungrier. Grains are healthy.
People with diseases like diabetes and insulin resistance ect ect are not "normally healthy" people. They shouldnt even be brought up in converstations about how evil carbs are for "healthy" people.
brb going to eat my homemade pasta and french breadz i might die or get instantly fat. r.i.p.9 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »I don't have an issue with low carb at all if it works for you
I do admittedly have the following issues
1) the prevailing nonsense that in order to lose weight one has to cut carbs ...it's a ridiculous concept that had seeped so far into the public domain that people from all walks of life, including medics, spout it as a solution to weight loss
2) the excitement at rapid scale weight drops that people often hit you with in the first few weeks when it's mainly.water weight manipulation and studies comparing to low fat as a diet show the rate of loss equalises by week 12 ...eg there is no long term speed benefits
3) for me personally the impossibility of long term adherence and how rapidly weight swings back once one eats carbs ...the approach always made me yo-yo badly
and I'm finally at a solution to my weight that gives me long term adherence over temporary weight loss.
I have gone low carb a number of times for periods between 3 months and about 11 months but always 'fell off' eventually and ended up fatter than before I started. And the speed at which that weight was regained always shocked me. Every time I restarted I did so with the mindset of 'this time I know what I'm doing, I just need to get to x weight,this time I will stick to it'
4) the bro-science claims around biological responses to carbs in those without specific medical conditions
Hope that helps
Its interesting that your 2nd point is that the weight loss in the beginning is largely water weight loss, but then in your 3rd point you lament about how rapidly the weight came back on when you increased carbs, you realize that was water weight as well. and then in your second part of point 3 you state how you eventually ended up fatter after adding carbs back, which would suggest you were eating a caloric surplus since we know that weight loss and gain are all about calories in vs. calories out. thus having nothing to do with the amount of carbs you were eating and everything to do with the amount of calories you were eating.
I know now what started the initial slide back.. And I know now it was about the calories but the point is i believed in the magic of eliminating carbs ...calories were not involved
low carb for me was not maintainable, it was an exercise in motivation and willpower and I was too goal oriented, get there and return to normal ...I didn't learn good habits, low carb was never my long term solution
I fully admit I did it wrong, believed in the hype and magic, now based on how successful I have been with a pure calorie counting approach with an eye to nutritional spread ..turned out I was happy at 50-60% carbs .. So generally in maintenance I'm eating around 250-350g carbs ..lots of veg and complex carbs but also white rice, white bread, chips, potatoes too
I suppose I see too many new excited people here and can relate to them and their naive enthusiasm but from a point of 3 decades of trying and failing and getting fatter, the successful low carbers who post have that knowledge of calorie equation that most new adopters don't
But I found what works for me, you do you
0 -
sbubenchik wrote: »Higher "processed carbs"? Uh yeah. Read stuff from the British medical journal. Or pick any other studies from various universities. I thought it was common sense by now that processed foods weren't as good for the body. I never said sweet potatoes were bad. I eat tons of carbs. But it's just in the form of leafy greens and other veggies. I'm finished with this forum, I think the person asking the question got enough info from both sides. All debate BS aside, I just want people to feel fantastic and be healthy.
But if I had to wager, I'd bet you think regular old potatoes are bad...you should look at the nutritional information of a regular old russet vs a sweet potato...I think it's hilarious how one is the friggin' devil and the other is a super food when there's really no meaningful difference nutritionally speaking...this is the kind of crap that annoys me about low carb...I have no issues with the diet itself...it's the willful ignorance of many that do it that annoys me to no end.11 -
auntstephie321 wrote: »I don't have an issue with low carb at all if it works for you
I do admittedly have the following issues
1) the prevailing nonsense that in order to lose weight one has to cut carbs ...it's a ridiculous concept that had seeped so far into the public domain that people from all walks of life, including medics, spout it as a solution to weight loss
2) the excitement at rapid scale weight drops that people often hit you with in the first few weeks when it's mainly.water weight manipulation and studies comparing to low fat as a diet show the rate of loss equalises by week 12 ...eg there is no long term speed benefits
3) for me personally the impossibility of long term adherence and how rapidly weight swings back once one eats carbs ...the approach always made me yo-yo badly and I'm finally at a solution to my weight that gives me long term adherence over temporary weight loss.
I have gone low carb a number of times for periods between 3 months and about 11 months but always 'fell off' eventually and ended up fatter than before I started. And the speed at which that weight was regained always shocked me. Every time I restarted I did so with the mindset of 'this time I know what I'm doing, I just need to get to x weight,this time I will stick to it'
4) the bro-science claims around biological responses to carbs in those without specific medical conditions
Hope that helps
Its interesting that your 2nd point is that the weight loss in the beginning is largely water weight loss, but then in your 3rd point you lament about how rapidly the weight came back on when you increased carbs, you realize that was water weight as well. and then in your second part of point 3 you state how you eventually ended up fatter after adding carbs back, which would suggest you were eating a caloric surplus since we know that weight loss and gain are all about calories in vs. calories out. thus having nothing to do with the amount of carbs you were eating and everything to do with the amount of calories you were eating.
I know now what started the initial slide back.. And I know now it was about the calories but the point is i believed in the magic of eliminating carbs ...calories were not involved
low carb for me was not maintainable, it was an exercise in motivation and willpower and I was too goal oriented, get there and return to normal ...I didn't learn good habits, low carb was never my long term solution
I fully admit I did it wrong, believed in the hype and magic, now based on how successful I have been with a pure calorie counting approach with an eye to nutritional spread ..turned out I was happy at 50-60% carbs .. So generally in maintenance I'm eating around 250-350g carbs ..lots of veg and complex carbs but also white rice, white bread, chips, potatoes too
I suppose I see too many new excited people here and can relate to them and their naive enthusiasm but from a point of 3 decades of trying and failing and getting fatter, the successful low carbers who post have that knowledge of calorie equation that most new adopters don't
But I found what works for me, you do you
100% agree. After a few trials myself, I know it's the least sustainable method for me as well.
I just thought it was interesting how many people fall for some things for the exact reasons they would fall out of them (water weight fluctuations in this case), and how people find it hard to keep dieting when it's closely attached to emotions, like initial enthusiasm and excitement (water loss) then when that enthusiasm is challenged by the exact same mechanism (water gain) it affects their adherence, even if they know how things work (CICO). It was just an on the side observation mostly for myself at the time since I was going through a similar issue of getting too excited about a quick woosh then bummed about a relatively long stall even though I knew what was happening. Humans are funny like that. I also find it interesting how some people, especially newbies, cling to certain details (like carb count) when the main focus should be eating fewer calories than they burn and everything else is just an aid to help it happen, like they're looking for a scapegoat in case of failure that doesn't involve them admitting that they are overeating for whatever reason (which could as well be a poor diet choice for their preferences).
Carry on and don't mind me. I was having a mental tangent moment.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »sbubenchik wrote: »Higher "processed carbs"? Uh yeah. Read stuff from the British medical journal. Or pick any other studies from various universities. I thought it was common sense by now that processed foods weren't as good for the body. I never said sweet potatoes were bad. I eat tons of carbs. But it's just in the form of leafy greens and other veggies. I'm finished with this forum, I think the person asking the question got enough info from both sides. All debate BS aside, I just want people to feel fantastic and be healthy.
But if I had to wager, I'd bet you think regular old potatoes are bad...you should look at the nutritional information of a regular old russet vs a sweet potato...I think it's hilarious how one is the friggin' devil and the other is a super food when there's really no meaningful difference nutritionally speaking...this is the kind of crap that annoys me about low carb...I have no issues with the diet itself...it's the willful ignorance of many that do it that annoys me to no end.
But a russet potato is white and a sweet potato is orange and everyone knows white = bad. #sarcasm3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »sbubenchik wrote: »Higher "processed carbs"? Uh yeah. Read stuff from the British medical journal. Or pick any other studies from various universities. I thought it was common sense by now that processed foods weren't as good for the body. I never said sweet potatoes were bad. I eat tons of carbs. But it's just in the form of leafy greens and other veggies. I'm finished with this forum, I think the person asking the question got enough info from both sides. All debate BS aside, I just want people to feel fantastic and be healthy.
But if I had to wager, I'd bet you think regular old potatoes are bad...you should look at the nutritional information of a regular old russet vs a sweet potato...I think it's hilarious how one is the friggin' devil and the other is a super food when there's really no meaningful difference nutritionally speaking...this is the kind of crap that annoys me about low carb...I have no issues with the diet itself...it's the willful ignorance of many that do it that annoys me to no end.
The body building community is not much better. This is where most of the crap stems from. It's like the difference between white rice vs brown.. Almost 100% identical besides 1g more of fiber in most browns.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »I don't have an issue with low carb at all if it works for you
I do admittedly have the following issues
1) the prevailing nonsense that in order to lose weight one has to cut carbs ...it's a ridiculous concept that had seeped so far into the public domain that people from all walks of life, including medics, spout it as a solution to weight loss
2) the excitement at rapid scale weight drops that people often hit you with in the first few weeks when it's mainly.water weight manipulation and studies comparing to low fat as a diet show the rate of loss equalises by week 12 ...eg there is no long term speed benefits
3) for me personally the impossibility of long term adherence and how rapidly weight swings back once one eats carbs ...the approach always made me yo-yo badly and I'm finally at a solution to my weight that gives me long term adherence over temporary weight loss.
I have gone low carb a number of times for periods between 3 months and about 11 months but always 'fell off' eventually and ended up fatter than before I started. And the speed at which that weight was regained always shocked me. Every time I restarted I did so with the mindset of 'this time I know what I'm doing, I just need to get to x weight,this time I will stick to it'
4) the bro-science claims around biological responses to carbs in those without specific medical conditions
Hope that helps
Its interesting that your 2nd point is that the weight loss in the beginning is largely water weight loss, but then in your 3rd point you lament about how rapidly the weight came back on when you increased carbs, you realize that was water weight as well. and then in your second part of point 3 you state how you eventually ended up fatter after adding carbs back, which would suggest you were eating a caloric surplus since we know that weight loss and gain are all about calories in vs. calories out. thus having nothing to do with the amount of carbs you were eating and everything to do with the amount of calories you were eating.
I know now what started the initial slide back.. And I know now it was about the calories but the point is i believed in the magic of eliminating carbs ...calories were not involved
low carb for me was not maintainable, it was an exercise in motivation and willpower and I was too goal oriented, get there and return to normal ...I didn't learn good habits, low carb was never my long term solution
I fully admit I did it wrong, believed in the hype and magic, now based on how successful I have been with a pure calorie counting approach with an eye to nutritional spread ..turned out I was happy at 50-60% carbs .. So generally in maintenance I'm eating around 250-350g carbs ..lots of veg and complex carbs but also white rice, white bread, chips, potatoes too
I suppose I see too many new excited people here and can relate to them and their naive enthusiasm but from a point of 3 decades of trying and failing and getting fatter, the successful low carbers who post have that knowledge of calorie equation that most new adopters don't
But I found what works for me, you do you
100% agree. After a few trials myself, I know it's the least sustainable method for me as well.
I just thought it was interesting how many people fall for some things for the exact reasons they would fall out of them (water weight fluctuations in this case), and how people find it hard to keep dieting when it's closely attached to emotions, like initial enthusiasm and excitement (water loss) then when that enthusiasm is challenged by the exact same mechanism (water gain) it affects their adherence, even if they know how things work (CICO). It was just an on the side observation mostly for myself at the time since I was going through a similar issue of getting too excited about a quick woosh then bummed about a relatively long stall even though I knew what was happening. Humans are funny like that. I also find it interesting how some people, especially newbies, cling to certain details (like carb count) when the main focus should be eating fewer calories than they burn and everything else is just an aid to help it happen, like they're looking for a scapegoat in case of failure that doesn't involve them admitting that they are overeating for whatever reason (which could as well be a poor diet choice for their preferences).
Carry on and don't mind me. I was having a mental tangent moment.
I hope people don't mind me jumping in this conversation after it's been ongoing for a while, but you've touched on something here that really rang true for me.
I struggled with weight for many, many years and the main reason I did was because I was always looking for a scapegoat. Bear in mind, please, that I'm talking about my personal experience here. If low carbing works for someone else, that's great.
I low carbed for a very, very long time. The problem was that I was serving an idea of something that would save me from myself rather than embracing a healthy, sustainable habit that would see me through a life time of weight management.
When I fixed me, I was able to embrace CICO, and take on the responsibility for building a diet around the foods I love within my calorie limits. It was the first time in 40 years I was ever successful dieting and getting truly thin.
6 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »sbubenchik wrote: »Higher "processed carbs"? Uh yeah. Read stuff from the British medical journal. Or pick any other studies from various universities. I thought it was common sense by now that processed foods weren't as good for the body. I never said sweet potatoes were bad. I eat tons of carbs. But it's just in the form of leafy greens and other veggies. I'm finished with this forum, I think the person asking the question got enough info from both sides. All debate BS aside, I just want people to feel fantastic and be healthy.
But if I had to wager, I'd bet you think regular old potatoes are bad...you should look at the nutritional information of a regular old russet vs a sweet potato...I think it's hilarious how one is the friggin' devil and the other is a super food when there's really no meaningful difference nutritionally speaking...this is the kind of crap that annoys me about low carb...I have no issues with the diet itself...it's the willful ignorance of many that do it that annoys me to no end.
The body building community is not much better. This is where most of the crap stems from. It's like the difference between white rice vs brown.. Almost 100% identical besides 1g more of fiber in most browns.
Very true....1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »sbubenchik wrote: »Higher "processed carbs"? Uh yeah. Read stuff from the British medical journal. Or pick any other studies from various universities. I thought it was common sense by now that processed foods weren't as good for the body. I never said sweet potatoes were bad. I eat tons of carbs. But it's just in the form of leafy greens and other veggies. I'm finished with this forum, I think the person asking the question got enough info from both sides. All debate BS aside, I just want people to feel fantastic and be healthy.
But if I had to wager, I'd bet you think regular old potatoes are bad...you should look at the nutritional information of a regular old russet vs a sweet potato...I think it's hilarious how one is the friggin' devil and the other is a super food when there's really no meaningful difference nutritionally speaking...this is the kind of crap that annoys me about low carb...I have no issues with the diet itself...it's the willful ignorance of many that do it that annoys me to no end.
The body building community is not much better. This is where most of the crap stems from. It's like the difference between white rice vs brown.. Almost 100% identical besides 1g more of fiber in most browns.
And it cooks up soupy. Who wants that ish for a measly gram of fiber?0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »sbubenchik wrote: »Higher "processed carbs"? Uh yeah. Read stuff from the British medical journal. Or pick any other studies from various universities. I thought it was common sense by now that processed foods weren't as good for the body. I never said sweet potatoes were bad. I eat tons of carbs. But it's just in the form of leafy greens and other veggies. I'm finished with this forum, I think the person asking the question got enough info from both sides. All debate BS aside, I just want people to feel fantastic and be healthy.
But if I had to wager, I'd bet you think regular old potatoes are bad...you should look at the nutritional information of a regular old russet vs a sweet potato...I think it's hilarious how one is the friggin' devil and the other is a super food when there's really no meaningful difference nutritionally speaking...this is the kind of crap that annoys me about low carb...I have no issues with the diet itself...it's the willful ignorance of many that do it that annoys me to no end.
The body building community is not much better. This is where most of the crap stems from. It's like the difference between white rice vs brown.. Almost 100% identical besides 1g more of fiber in most browns.
And it cooks up soupy. Who wants that ish for a measly gram of fiber?
I'm a basmati girl really
But American long grain and wild rice mix is yum
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »sbubenchik wrote: »Yeah well I not only go by how my body reacts, but also I read articles in medical journals. So yeah, carbs like pasta, breads and grains are not that good for you at all. They are indeed worthless. Fibrous carbs are very good for you as well as a moderate amount of protein and good amount of fats. You can keep your insulin in check which is a healthier way to live. Everyone gets hungry shortly after eating complex carbs because they experience an insulin spike then crash resulting in hunger and or tired. People are finally finding out that our brain and cells are made up of mostly fat, not glucose, that's old out dates stuff.
I eat vegetarian 3-4 days per week and mostly just fish on meat days and only for one meal...I do not get hungry shortly after eating complex carbs and complex carbs don't really lead to insulin spikes and I sure don't have any "crash"...straight up sugar and refined carbs eaten in isolation do...of course, I'm sure you know that eating things like pasta or white rice along with some protein and fat completely alters the GL of those items....
Staples of my so called "unhealthy" (laughable) diet...
lentils and legumes...friggin' nasty junk food...
Junky whole oats...
More sh!tty whole foods...friggin' junk I tell ya...
That's basically pure *kitten* right there...
More garbage going into my body....
To think carbohydrates are "poison" and bad for your body is nutritional ignorance...
Such a great post, as are your others on this thread.1 -
sbubenchik wrote: »Ok since you also agree that I know nothing about nutrition and fitness, then teach me. I also wanna know how I'm in the kinda shape I'm in when I'm doing everything wrong. That's a real question by the way.
You're not necessarily doing anything wrong, but you're basically saying what works for you must work for everyone else and if it doesn't work for you then it can't work for anyone else. That's incorrect.1 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »sbubenchik wrote: »Ok since you also agree that I know nothing about nutrition and fitness, then teach me. I also wanna know how I'm in the kinda shape I'm in when I'm doing everything wrong. That's a real question by the way.
You're not necessarily doing anything wrong, but you're basically saying what works for you must work for everyone else and if it doesn't work for you then it can't work for anyone else. That's incorrect.
It's frustrating because he also does not understand why it's working...2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »sbubenchik wrote: »Higher "processed carbs"? Uh yeah. Read stuff from the British medical journal. Or pick any other studies from various universities. I thought it was common sense by now that processed foods weren't as good for the body. I never said sweet potatoes were bad. I eat tons of carbs. But it's just in the form of leafy greens and other veggies. I'm finished with this forum, I think the person asking the question got enough info from both sides. All debate BS aside, I just want people to feel fantastic and be healthy.
But if I had to wager, I'd bet you think regular old potatoes are bad...you should look at the nutritional information of a regular old russet vs a sweet potato...I think it's hilarious how one is the friggin' devil and the other is a super food when there's really no meaningful difference nutritionally speaking...this is the kind of crap that annoys me about low carb...I have no issues with the diet itself...it's the willful ignorance of many that do it that annoys me to no end.
The body building community is not much better. This is where most of the crap stems from. It's like the difference between white rice vs brown.. Almost 100% identical besides 1g more of fiber in most browns.
Well, unenriched white rice is actually significantly less nutritious in several key vitamins, particularly thiamine. Historically thiamine deficiency from subsisting almost exclusively on white rice was a key cause of malnutrition among the very poor in southeast Asia.
It's extremely rare in developed nations, though, particularly as enriched grains have effectively the same vitamin content as their whole-grain counterparts, and most of us have diets far more broad than just one primary food.0 -
sbubenchik wrote: »Higher "processed carbs"? Uh yeah. Read stuff from the British medical journal. Or pick any other studies from various universities. I thought it was common sense by now that processed foods weren't as good for the body. I never said sweet potatoes were bad. I eat tons of carbs. But it's just in the form of leafy greens and other veggies. I'm finished with this forum, I think the person asking the question got enough info from both sides. All debate BS aside, I just want people to feel fantastic and be healthy.
Consider joining the Low Carber Daily MFP group. Most low carbers don't bother with the main forums either.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »I don't have an issue with low carb at all if it works for you
I do admittedly have the following issues
1) the prevailing nonsense that in order to lose weight one has to cut carbs ...it's a ridiculous concept that had seeped so far into the public domain that people from all walks of life, including medics, spout it as a solution to weight loss
2) the excitement at rapid scale weight drops that people often hit you with in the first few weeks when it's mainly.water weight manipulation and studies comparing to low fat as a diet show the rate of loss equalises by week 12 ...eg there is no long term speed benefits
3) for me personally the impossibility of long term adherence and how rapidly weight swings back once one eats carbs ...the approach always made me yo-yo badly and I'm finally at a solution to my weight that gives me long term adherence over temporary weight loss.
I have gone low carb a number of times for periods between 3 months and about 11 months but always 'fell off' eventually and ended up fatter than before I started. And the speed at which that weight was regained always shocked me. Every time I restarted I did so with the mindset of 'this time I know what I'm doing, I just need to get to x weight,this time I will stick to it'
4) the bro-science claims around biological responses to carbs in those without specific medical conditions
Hope that helps
Its interesting that your 2nd point is that the weight loss in the beginning is largely water weight loss, but then in your 3rd point you lament about how rapidly the weight came back on when you increased carbs, you realize that was water weight as well. and then in your second part of point 3 you state how you eventually ended up fatter after adding carbs back, which would suggest you were eating a caloric surplus since we know that weight loss and gain are all about calories in vs. calories out. thus having nothing to do with the amount of carbs you were eating and everything to do with the amount of calories you were eating.
I know now what started the initial slide back.. And I know now it was about the calories but the point is i believed in the magic of eliminating carbs ...calories were not involved
low carb for me was not maintainable, it was an exercise in motivation and willpower and I was too goal oriented, get there and return to normal ...I didn't learn good habits, low carb was never my long term solution
I fully admit I did it wrong, believed in the hype and magic, now based on how successful I have been with a pure calorie counting approach with an eye to nutritional spread ..turned out I was happy at 50-60% carbs .. So generally in maintenance I'm eating around 250-350g carbs ..lots of veg and complex carbs but also white rice, white bread, chips, potatoes too
I suppose I see too many new excited people here and can relate to them and their naive enthusiasm but from a point of 3 decades of trying and failing and getting fatter, the successful low carbers who post have that knowledge of calorie equation that most new adopters don't
But I found what works for me, you do you
100% agree. After a few trials myself, I know it's the least sustainable method for me as well.
I just thought it was interesting how many people fall for some things for the exact reasons they would fall out of them (water weight fluctuations in this case), and how people find it hard to keep dieting when it's closely attached to emotions, like initial enthusiasm and excitement (water loss) then when that enthusiasm is challenged by the exact same mechanism (water gain) it affects their adherence, even if they know how things work (CICO). It was just an on the side observation mostly for myself at the time since I was going through a similar issue of getting too excited about a quick woosh then bummed about a relatively long stall even though I knew what was happening. Humans are funny like that. I also find it interesting how some people, especially newbies, cling to certain details (like carb count) when the main focus should be eating fewer calories than they burn and everything else is just an aid to help it happen, like they're looking for a scapegoat in case of failure that doesn't involve them admitting that they are overeating for whatever reason (which could as well be a poor diet choice for their preferences).
Carry on and don't mind me. I was having a mental tangent moment.
I hope people don't mind me jumping in this conversation after it's been ongoing for a while, but you've touched on something here that really rang true for me.
I struggled with weight for many, many years and the main reason I did was because I was always looking for a scapegoat. Bear in mind, please, that I'm talking about my personal experience here. If low carbing works for someone else, that's great.
I low carbed for a very, very long time. The problem was that I was serving an idea of something that would save me from myself rather than embracing a healthy, sustainable habit that would see me through a life time of weight management.
When I fixed me, I was able to embrace CICO, and take on the responsibility for building a diet around the foods I love within my calorie limits. It was the first time in 40 years I was ever successful dieting and getting truly thin.
it's pretty clear who you are... welcome back and congratulations for your success so far!
0 -
There's a significant difference between being in a ketogenic state and not providing your body with a proper fuel source.0
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »auntstephie321 wrote: »I don't have an issue with low carb at all if it works for you
I do admittedly have the following issues
1) the prevailing nonsense that in order to lose weight one has to cut carbs ...it's a ridiculous concept that had seeped so far into the public domain that people from all walks of life, including medics, spout it as a solution to weight loss
2) the excitement at rapid scale weight drops that people often hit you with in the first few weeks when it's mainly.water weight manipulation and studies comparing to low fat as a diet show the rate of loss equalises by week 12 ...eg there is no long term speed benefits
3) for me personally the impossibility of long term adherence and how rapidly weight swings back once one eats carbs ...the approach always made me yo-yo badly and I'm finally at a solution to my weight that gives me long term adherence over temporary weight loss.
I have gone low carb a number of times for periods between 3 months and about 11 months but always 'fell off' eventually and ended up fatter than before I started. And the speed at which that weight was regained always shocked me. Every time I restarted I did so with the mindset of 'this time I know what I'm doing, I just need to get to x weight,this time I will stick to it'
4) the bro-science claims around biological responses to carbs in those without specific medical conditions
Hope that helps
Its interesting that your 2nd point is that the weight loss in the beginning is largely water weight loss, but then in your 3rd point you lament about how rapidly the weight came back on when you increased carbs, you realize that was water weight as well. and then in your second part of point 3 you state how you eventually ended up fatter after adding carbs back, which would suggest you were eating a caloric surplus since we know that weight loss and gain are all about calories in vs. calories out. thus having nothing to do with the amount of carbs you were eating and everything to do with the amount of calories you were eating.
I know now what started the initial slide back.. And I know now it was about the calories but the point is i believed in the magic of eliminating carbs ...calories were not involved
low carb for me was not maintainable, it was an exercise in motivation and willpower and I was too goal oriented, get there and return to normal ...I didn't learn good habits, low carb was never my long term solution
I fully admit I did it wrong, believed in the hype and magic, now based on how successful I have been with a pure calorie counting approach with an eye to nutritional spread ..turned out I was happy at 50-60% carbs .. So generally in maintenance I'm eating around 250-350g carbs ..lots of veg and complex carbs but also white rice, white bread, chips, potatoes too
I suppose I see too many new excited people here and can relate to them and their naive enthusiasm but from a point of 3 decades of trying and failing and getting fatter, the successful low carbers who post have that knowledge of calorie equation that most new adopters don't
But I found what works for me, you do you
100% agree. After a few trials myself, I know it's the least sustainable method for me as well.
I just thought it was interesting how many people fall for some things for the exact reasons they would fall out of them (water weight fluctuations in this case), and how people find it hard to keep dieting when it's closely attached to emotions, like initial enthusiasm and excitement (water loss) then when that enthusiasm is challenged by the exact same mechanism (water gain) it affects their adherence, even if they know how things work (CICO). It was just an on the side observation mostly for myself at the time since I was going through a similar issue of getting too excited about a quick woosh then bummed about a relatively long stall even though I knew what was happening. Humans are funny like that. I also find it interesting how some people, especially newbies, cling to certain details (like carb count) when the main focus should be eating fewer calories than they burn and everything else is just an aid to help it happen, like they're looking for a scapegoat in case of failure that doesn't involve them admitting that they are overeating for whatever reason (which could as well be a poor diet choice for their preferences).
Carry on and don't mind me. I was having a mental tangent moment.
I hope people don't mind me jumping in this conversation after it's been ongoing for a while, but you've touched on something here that really rang true for me.
I struggled with weight for many, many years and the main reason I did was because I was always looking for a scapegoat. Bear in mind, please, that I'm talking about my personal experience here. If low carbing works for someone else, that's great.
I low carbed for a very, very long time. The problem was that I was serving an idea of something that would save me from myself rather than embracing a healthy, sustainable habit that would see me through a life time of weight management.
When I fixed me, I was able to embrace CICO, and take on the responsibility for building a diet around the foods I love within my calorie limits. It was the first time in 40 years I was ever successful dieting and getting truly thin.
it's pretty clear who you are... welcome back and congratulations for your success so far!
Well, I'm not exactly "hiding" who I am. Thanks. I'm down 91 pounds at this point.0 -
bclarke1990 wrote: »There's a significant difference between being in a ketogenic state and not providing your body with a proper fuel source.
But what's a proper fuel source? For me that's carbohydrates and protein. For you I suppose that ketones.
I remember hearing that there's some preliminary research suggesting that there might be a genetic component behind which people find high fat preferable to high carb. Wouldn't that be great to finally put this whole thing to rest?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions