If I cut out bread will that help loosing weight?
Replies
-
goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
Now that I have access to supermarkets, reduced carbs (mostly from flour) and increased protein helps me create a calorie deficit.
However, when I was in Costa Rica, I didn't have access to a lot of calorie dense food like cheese, PB, ice cream, pizza, etc., and lost a lot of weight while stuffing myself with fruit and eating rice & beans once or twice per day. I probably had meat 4 times in 6 weeks. Well, chicken. Our Guaymí neighbors brought us "jungle meat" from time to time.
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I agree with this.
Calories for weight loss. Micronutrients for health, minimum macros for health, macro split for adherence. The first three are for everyone, the last one is personal.
@Aaron_K123 agreed with something I said. I feel special.
5 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, imo, depending on what percentage of carbs they were eating while they were gaining or maintaining their gains, that reducing carbs helps with adherence for many people, in fact, I would dare say most people. I suspect I could find evidence to support that idea if I dug around hard enough. Not up to it though, sorry.
Having said that, I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who can lose weight and maintain their loss while eating higher carb than even my 50% example. My husband is a perfect example. I only aim for 20% protein, but I eat more protein than he does.
PS I read right past your comment about working in what you crave helping most with adherence. I have no idea how the numbers might work out on that one. I can only give you my personal experience, which is that the annoyance of feeling a little hungry all the time is a bigger deal than not having eating all the carby treats I used to have. At least that's where I am in my gurney at the moment.0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I agree with this.
Calories for weight loss. Micronutrients for health, minimum macros for health, macro split for adherence. The first three are for everyone, the last one is personal.
@Aaron_K123 agreed with something I said. I feel special.
Lol...don't make it weird now.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I agree with this.
Calories for weight loss. Micronutrients for health, minimum macros for health, macro split for adherence. The first three are for everyone, the last one is personal.
@Aaron_K123 agreed with something I said. I feel special.
Lol...don't make it weird now.
LOL. Yes, sir. *snicker*0 -
Arf1
-
goldthistime wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, imo, depending on what percentage of carbs they were eating while they were gaining or maintaining their gains, that reducing carbs helps with adherence for many people, in fact, I would dare say most people. I suspect I could find evidence to support that idea if I dug around hard enough. Not up to it though, sorry.
Having said that, I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who can lose weight and maintain their loss while eating higher carb than even my 50% example. My husband is a perfect example. I only aim for 20% protein, but I eat more protein than he does.
While I'm not exactly sure why you quoted my comment to post this reply to, I'm going to have to say that apparently, in response to the bolded, I'm not most people then.0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, imo, depending on what percentage of carbs they were eating while they were gaining or maintaining their gains, that reducing carbs helps with adherence for many people, in fact, I would dare say most people. I suspect I could find evidence to support that idea if I dug around hard enough. Not up to it though, sorry.
Having said that, I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who can lose weight and maintain their loss while eating higher carb than even my 50% example. My husband is a perfect example. I only aim for 20% protein, but I eat more protein than he does.
While I'm not exactly sure why you quoted my comment to post this reply to, I'm going to have to say that apparently, in response to the bolded, I'm not most people then.
I quoted you because you revised my comment from "helps with adherence" to "helps with adherence for SOME people", and I am disagreeing slightly, saying that imo "reducing carbs helps with adherence for MANY people, if not MOST".
Are we splitting hairs here? Who knows. I know I can't help but let me personal experiences colour my views, but I still say that I think I have read stuff to support my view. Perhaps I'll do some digging later tonight to try and find some credible sources.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, imo, depending on what percentage of carbs they were eating while they were gaining or maintaining their gains, that reducing carbs helps with adherence for many people, in fact, I would dare say most people. I suspect I could find evidence to support that idea if I dug around hard enough. Not up to it though, sorry.
Having said that, I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who can lose weight and maintain their loss while eating higher carb than even my 50% example. My husband is a perfect example. I only aim for 20% protein, but I eat more protein than he does.
While I'm not exactly sure why you quoted my comment to post this reply to, I'm going to have to say that apparently, in response to the bolded, I'm not most people then.
I quoted you because you revised my comment from "helps with adherence" to "helps with adherence for SOME people", and I am disagreeing slightly, saying that imo "reducing carbs helps with adherence for MANY people, if not MOST".
Are we splitting hairs here? Who knows. I know I can't help but let me personal experiences colour my views, but I still say that I think I have read stuff to support my view. Perhaps I'll do some digging later tonight to try and find some credible sources.
Good idea! Credible sources. Doing low carb was difficult for me too.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, imo, depending on what percentage of carbs they were eating while they were gaining or maintaining their gains, that reducing carbs helps with adherence for many people, in fact, I would dare say most people. I suspect I could find evidence to support that idea if I dug around hard enough. Not up to it though, sorry.
Having said that, I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who can lose weight and maintain their loss while eating higher carb than even my 50% example. My husband is a perfect example. I only aim for 20% protein, but I eat more protein than he does.
While I'm not exactly sure why you quoted my comment to post this reply to, I'm going to have to say that apparently, in response to the bolded, I'm not most people then.
I quoted you because you revised my comment from "helps with adherence" to "helps with adherence for SOME people", and I am disagreeing slightly, saying that imo "reducing carbs helps with adherence for MANY people, if not MOST".
Are we splitting hairs here? Who knows. I know I can't help but let me personal experiences colour my views, but I still say that I think I have read stuff to support my view. Perhaps I'll do some digging later tonight to try and find some credible sources.
Good idea! Credible sources. Doing low carb was difficult for me too.
I used the nebulous term "reduced carb" rather than "low carb" on purpose. Meaning, imo, for "many if not most people", reducing carbs from whatever your norm was should help you to feel fuller longer. That's it for me though till I can come back with some studies either supporting or disputing my point of view.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »
Again, go to a penitentiary and see what inmates eat day in and day out. And there's not a epidemic of obesity in the pen.goldthistime wrote: »I'm not interested enough in this topic to pull up studies supporting my view, but here it is anyway. As I recall, especially in the early days after Atkins was introduced, there were studies suggesting that you could lose more on a low carb diet with the same amount of calories as someone who was not low carb. I assume that the current view that it is only calories that matter is the correct one, and that I could pull up studies disputing the earlier studies. I make this point in defence of @ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken. Meaning if scientists and published studies made this "mistake", it's a very easy one to make.
Aside from the obvious difference of glycogen and associated water (meaning low carbers maintain low glycogen levels so even a year or two out they would typically be retaining less water), I read once an idea that made sense to me, that the extra effort your body requires to adjust to low carb burns more calories, giving the low carb diet a slight advantage. But mostly, I think it's about satiety, and that when you are too hungry it's normal to cheat. IOW, I suspect the early differences were more about the ability to adhere to the diet. Improving adherence is still a big deal.
Having said all that in defence of low carbers, I'm not one. I prefer to lose slowly and sustainably and include a decent amount of carbs (up to 50%). If I thought that losing quickly were important, (for instance, if my health were in jeopardy), I think I'd try lower carb.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I agree with you! I was probably too wordy, but let me give you my tldr version: I think reduced carb helps with adherence. Course, not as well as The Prison Diet, almost guaranteed adherence there.
"I think reduced carb helps with adherence for some people." My personal opinion is that this is more accurate. I've lost over 100 lbs since last July. Some people would look at my carb numbers and have a heart attack. They can be that high. If I had to lower my carbs my adherence would fail miserably. Working in what you crave most helps with adherence, not one particular macro.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that, imo, depending on what percentage of carbs they were eating while they were gaining or maintaining their gains, that reducing carbs helps with adherence for many people, in fact, I would dare say most people. I suspect I could find evidence to support that idea if I dug around hard enough. Not up to it though, sorry.
Having said that, I acknowledge that there are plenty of people who can lose weight and maintain their loss while eating higher carb than even my 50% example. My husband is a perfect example. I only aim for 20% protein, but I eat more protein than he does.
While I'm not exactly sure why you quoted my comment to post this reply to, I'm going to have to say that apparently, in response to the bolded, I'm not most people then.
I quoted you because you revised my comment from "helps with adherence" to "helps with adherence for SOME people", and I am disagreeing slightly, saying that imo "reducing carbs helps with adherence for MANY people, if not MOST".
Are we splitting hairs here? Who knows. I know I can't help but let me personal experiences colour my views, but I still say that I think I have read stuff to support my view. Perhaps I'll do some digging later tonight to try and find some credible sources.
Well, @Aaron_K123 agreed with my comment also and responded with:Aaron_K123 wrote: »I agree with this.
Calories for weight loss. Micronutrients for health, minimum macros for health, macro split for adherence. The first three are for everyone, the last one is personal.
Are you gonna address his opinion regarding your blanket statement on macros and adherence?
Your personal experience with this does not make it true for everyone. And my saying that adding "most" makes it more accurate is absolutely truthful merely by the fact that I can say reducing carbs does in no way, shape, or form help with my adherence. All it takes is for one person with a different experience to make your blanket statement, that by its phrasing encompassed everyone, not true.
You said reduced carbs helps with adherence. I said it helps for some. You said you disagree with me. That's calling me a liar because I informed you that reducing carbs would make my adherence more difficult.0 -
But potatoes...3
-
Well most people already covered what you need to know in terms of deficit and food types but I just wanted to let you know that you lose weight and your pants become loose. The extra o isn't needed in the word you're trying to use.0
-
Well most people already covered what you need to know in terms of deficit and food types but I just wanted to let you know that you lose weight and your pants become loose. The extra o isn't needed in the word you're trying to use.
But if you lose your pants does that make you loose?8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Well most people already covered what you need to know in terms of deficit and food types but I just wanted to let you know that you lose weight and your pants become loose. The extra o isn't needed in the word you're trying to use.
But if you lose your pants does that make you loose?
Idk, how many dates has it been? Lol
2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Well most people already covered what you need to know in terms of deficit and food types but I just wanted to let you know that you lose weight and your pants become loose. The extra o isn't needed in the word you're trying to use.
But if you lose your pants does that make you loose?
I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I'm losing weight and I eat bread - killer Dave 60 cal bread. Bloating is an issue for some folks with bread.
Ive heard this before. Out of curiosity why do people care about bloating? Its not fat, its just water retention...has no bearing on your health or fitness. So why do people care? They really want a particular number on their scale or its an aesthetic thing?
Bloating in the fingers make rings too tight. Bloating in the feet makes shoes too tight. Maybe bloating also reminds women of TOM and they just don't like it.
1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Well most people already covered what you need to know in terms of deficit and food types but I just wanted to let you know that you lose weight and your pants become loose. The extra o isn't needed in the word you're trying to use.
But if you lose your pants does that make you loose?
Idk, how many dates has it been? Lol
I swear every interesting conversation on these forums happens while I'm teaching.2 -
TLDR: I found some fairly recent evidence supporting the idea that proteins and fats contribute more to satiety than do carbohydrates.
Welp, not surprisingly there was a ton of conflicting studies out there about satiety and macros, especially in discussions in older papers. I made the leap from satiety to adherence and didn't take the time to find evidence to support or dispute. Satiety is generally defined as a lasting feeling of fullness, (versus being satisfied at the end of the meal). If anyone wants to contest the idea that lasting fullness is the main factor in adherence, well, that's another discussion entirely that I'm not up for atm.
I went to google scholar, chose only studies after 2012, and looked for Carbohydrate Satiety and found the first study, then Protein Satiety and found the second.
Here are the links to the two studies:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2012-3835 - for fats vs carbs
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/5/980.short - for proteins vs carbs
Even in the older studies, the concept that protein provides more satiety than fat or carbs seemed to be fairly well accepted. Whether fats or carbs provided more satiety was controversial. So let me start with the easier case to prove, that proteins give more satiety than carbs.
In the proteins vs carbs satiety study, published in May 2013 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, test meals were equivalent calorically and contained a constant fat level of 30%. The meals consisted of normal protein levels (NP) of 14% protein, medium high (MHP) levels of 25% and high (HP) levels of 50% protein. Obviously the carb levels decreased correspondingly. Their conclusion was that GLP-1 levels rose with increased protein (to be discussed further when I talk about the fats vs carbs study), and that "Satiety and fullness dose-dependently increased by 7% and 6% for MHP and 16% and 19% for HP compared with NP (P < 0.001). Hunger and prospective consumption dose-dependently decreased by 15% and 13% for MHP and by 25% and 26% for HP compared with NP (P < 0.0003)." So satiety increased and hunger decreased with higher levels of protein and lower levels of carbs.
In the fats vs carbs satiety study, published in the March 2013 edition of The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, the authors set out to look not only at fats vs carbs but at the hunger hormones ghrelin, GLP-1 and PYY, and their association with hunger and satiety. There were no differences between fat and carbs for ghrelin, but fat meals (also isocaloric) were associated with higher GLP-1 levels and PYY levels. GLP-1 levels, at the late satiety phase (60-180 minutes postprandial), were negatively associated with hunger. (Not PYY levels strangely, I learned something new here.)
I have only presented two studies because I don't have time to look at any more, but I didn't find any recent studies that disagreed with my views on carbs providing less satiety either. If I had, I would have presented them, and if someone disagrees with the methodology of these studies or wants to present studies that came to a different conclusion I welcome it. I'm here to learn too.
2 -
But potatoes...
Not sure if you are referencing the Mendosa Satiety Index, where the lowly potato rests at the top of the list as the most satisfying food. Supposedly a 240 calorie boiled potato kept people fuller during the 120 minute test than any other food. They speculate that the size, bulk and blandness of potatoes is the key to their satiety.
http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm
This index was developed based on subjective impressions every 15 minutes after eating, as compared to the studies above that are not at all concerned with immediate fullness, but only lasting fullness. In fact, I would suggest that the Mendosa Satiety Index is mixing up the terms satisfying and satiety.
0 -
since i started mfp, 50+ days ago I am eating more bread than before due to having peanut butter & tuna.I only use 0ne slice. Before i hardly ever ate bread. You have to experiment to see what fills you up. Bread fills me up. Today i found bread that's 45 calories per slice instead of 1002
-
goldthistime wrote: »But potatoes...
Not sure if you are referencing the Mendosa Satiety Index, where the lowly potato rests at the top of the list as the most satisfying food. Supposedly a 240 calorie boiled potato kept people fuller during the 120 minute test than any other food. They speculate that the size, bulk and blandness of potatoes is the key to their satiety.
http://www.mendosa.com/satiety.htm
This index was developed based on subjective impressions every 15 minutes after eating, as compared to the studies above that are not at all concerned with immediate fullness, but only lasting fullness. In fact, I would suggest that the Mendosa Satiety Index is mixing up the terms satisfying and satiety.
More likely referencing the fact that potatoes gonna potate
And mash3 -
goldthistime wrote: »TLDR: I found some fairly recent evidence supporting the idea that proteins and fats contribute more to satiety than do carbohydrates.
Welp, not surprisingly there was a ton of conflicting studies out there about satiety and macros, especially in discussions in older papers. I made the leap from satiety to adherence and didn't take the time to find evidence to support or dispute. Satiety is generally defined as a lasting feeling of fullness, (versus being satisfied at the end of the meal). If anyone wants to contest the idea that lasting fullness is the main factor in adherence, well, that's another discussion entirely that I'm not up for atm.
I went to google scholar, chose only studies after 2012, and looked for Carbohydrate Satiety and found the first study, then Protein Satiety and found the second.
Here are the links to the two studies:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2012-3835 - for fats vs carbs
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/5/980.short - for proteins vs carbs
Even in the older studies, the concept that protein provides more satiety than fat or carbs seemed to be fairly well accepted. Whether fats or carbs provided more satiety was controversial. So let me start with the easier case to prove, that proteins give more satiety than carbs.
In the proteins vs carbs satiety study, published in May 2013 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, test meals were equivalent calorically and contained a constant fat level of 30%. The meals consisted of normal protein levels (NP) of 14% protein, medium high (MHP) levels of 25% and high (HP) levels of 50% protein. Obviously the carb levels decreased correspondingly. Their conclusion was that GLP-1 levels rose with increased protein (to be discussed further when I talk about the fats vs carbs study), and that "Satiety and fullness dose-dependently increased by 7% and 6% for MHP and 16% and 19% for HP compared with NP (P < 0.001). Hunger and prospective consumption dose-dependently decreased by 15% and 13% for MHP and by 25% and 26% for HP compared with NP (P < 0.0003)." So satiety increased and hunger decreased with higher levels of protein and lower levels of carbs.
In the fats vs carbs satiety study, published in the March 2013 edition of The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, the authors set out to look not only at fats vs carbs but at the hunger hormones ghrelin, GLP-1 and PYY, and their association with hunger and satiety. There were no differences between fat and carbs for ghrelin, but fat meals (also isocaloric) were associated with higher GLP-1 levels and PYY levels. GLP-1 levels, at the late satiety phase (60-180 minutes postprandial), were negatively associated with hunger. (Not PYY levels strangely, I learned something new here.)
I have only presented two studies because I don't have time to look at any more, but I didn't find any recent studies that disagreed with my views on carbs providing less satiety either. If I had, I would have presented them, and if someone disagrees with the methodology of these studies or wants to present studies that came to a different conclusion I welcome it. I'm here to learn too.
I think you may have left the party serious and then returned serious before noticing that things had gone full silly.5 -
If I try cutting out bread will that help me lose weight and not be bloated anymore? I'm having a hard time losing weight. I'm trying to incorporate more meat and chicken. I'm trying to loose a pound a week. Any suggestions? Thanks!
Since you bloat up after consuming bread it wouldn't hurt to cut back to see if that extra water weight goes away. Obviously water weight is not fat, but I do acknowledge that bloating is uncomfortable. Cutting out bread won't help you lose fat unless that helps you to eat lower calories as a result.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Don't believe me? Put down T-nation and pick up a biochemistry textbook and look it up.
Well, if this doesn't make everything crystal clear for the OP, nothing will.
4 -
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Don't believe me? Put down T-nation and pick up a biochemistry textbook and look it up.
Well, if this doesn't make everything crystal clear for the OP, nothing will.
I know, right. It answered all of my questions in a simple and easy to read format
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »TLDR: I found some fairly recent evidence supporting the idea that proteins and fats contribute more to satiety than do carbohydrates.
Welp, not surprisingly there was a ton of conflicting studies out there about satiety and macros, especially in discussions in older papers. I made the leap from satiety to adherence and didn't take the time to find evidence to support or dispute. Satiety is generally defined as a lasting feeling of fullness, (versus being satisfied at the end of the meal). If anyone wants to contest the idea that lasting fullness is the main factor in adherence, well, that's another discussion entirely that I'm not up for atm.
I went to google scholar, chose only studies after 2012, and looked for Carbohydrate Satiety and found the first study, then Protein Satiety and found the second.
Here are the links to the two studies:
http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2012-3835 - for fats vs carbs
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/5/980.short - for proteins vs carbs
Even in the older studies, the concept that protein provides more satiety than fat or carbs seemed to be fairly well accepted. Whether fats or carbs provided more satiety was controversial. So let me start with the easier case to prove, that proteins give more satiety than carbs.
In the proteins vs carbs satiety study, published in May 2013 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, test meals were equivalent calorically and contained a constant fat level of 30%. The meals consisted of normal protein levels (NP) of 14% protein, medium high (MHP) levels of 25% and high (HP) levels of 50% protein. Obviously the carb levels decreased correspondingly. Their conclusion was that GLP-1 levels rose with increased protein (to be discussed further when I talk about the fats vs carbs study), and that "Satiety and fullness dose-dependently increased by 7% and 6% for MHP and 16% and 19% for HP compared with NP (P < 0.001). Hunger and prospective consumption dose-dependently decreased by 15% and 13% for MHP and by 25% and 26% for HP compared with NP (P < 0.0003)." So satiety increased and hunger decreased with higher levels of protein and lower levels of carbs.
In the fats vs carbs satiety study, published in the March 2013 edition of The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, the authors set out to look not only at fats vs carbs but at the hunger hormones ghrelin, GLP-1 and PYY, and their association with hunger and satiety. There were no differences between fat and carbs for ghrelin, but fat meals (also isocaloric) were associated with higher GLP-1 levels and PYY levels. GLP-1 levels, at the late satiety phase (60-180 minutes postprandial), were negatively associated with hunger. (Not PYY levels strangely, I learned something new here.)
I have only presented two studies because I don't have time to look at any more, but I didn't find any recent studies that disagreed with my views on carbs providing less satiety either. If I had, I would have presented them, and if someone disagrees with the methodology of these studies or wants to present studies that came to a different conclusion I welcome it. I'm here to learn too.
I think you may have left the party serious and then returned serious before noticing that things had gone full silly.
Taters gonna Tate.
Best I got.
3 -
Debbie_Ferr wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »
Don't believe me? Put down T-nation and pick up a biochemistry textbook and look it up.
Well, if this doesn't make everything crystal clear for the OP, nothing will.
Lol, I look at stuff like this and I swear a door closes in my mind and says "nope."
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