High carb
Options
Replies
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »SAD includes an average per person per day consumption of 462g of carbs.
Here is a restatement that hopefully makes sense:
1. SAD is high carb.
2. A majority of Americans are overweight or obese.
3. A high carb diet is therefore correlated with being overweight or obese.
4. The WHY isn't as clear.
There may be no why. You have not included enough evidence to make it clear there is a why. It's like saying CA has a high number of white men. CA voted for Clinton. A high number of white men is therefore correlated with voting for Clinton. The why is not so clear.
In particular you are leaving out relevant factors in what appears to be an effort to create a misleading narrative. Let me add some of those factors:
1. SAD has a high amount of total calories, and these calories are made up of (relative to other countries) a high amount of total carbs, a high amount of total fat, and even a high amount of total protein.
2. When looked at percentage-wise, the SAD has many dissimilarities with diets in areas that are not correlated with overweight or obesity.
3. On the macro level, these dissimilarities include a higher percentage of fat, but not a higher percentage of carbs.
4. Other differences include more sugar, more highly processed snack foods, more processed and red meat, more saturated fat.
5. If you look at countries across the board, a high calorie level is correlated with being overweight or obese. High total numbers of carbs and fat are both correlated with being overweight or obese. A high carb percentage is not correlated with being overweight or obese.
None of this suggests that in a calorie-controlled diet or a WF-based diet that a high carb percentage correlates with being overweight or obese or that total number of carbs in the absence of high total numbers of fat correlates with being overweight or obese. I believe this is more responsive to what OP was wondering about. He can comment if he disagrees, of course.
You are right in that there may not be a why. Like I said, it isn't clear... maybe there is none, maybe there are several. I'm just not sure on that.
We've already gone over the high carb quantity vs. high carb percentage difference even before @stevencloser put forth a moderate carb, high calorie hypothetical. When I say "high carb," the person eating 462g per day is eating high carb regardless of whether that is 5% of his/her diet or 100% of his/her diet. That is simply a high volume of carbs. Similarly, when I started eating low carb, I did not eat LCHF. I ate low carb. Plain and simple. I ate moderate fat and moderate protein, but not high protein and not high fat. By your definition, perhaps I wasn't eating low carb. Based on actual carb quantity, I was eating low carb.
So if you have a high TDEE do you eat high everything?
Not necessarily.
Anything resembling a balanced diet would be high everything.
If your definition of "balanced" is equal calories from all macros, then yes, a person with a high enough TDEE would be eating high in all macros.
ETA: Also assumes that said person is eating at maintenance.
No, doesn't have to be equal. Just balanced. Low carb could be balanced as well. My TDEE is about 4k right now. What is "low" carb for me? Or low fat?
Regardless of your TDEE or CI, I would consider <150g to be low carb.
I wouldn't, and I find this an odd view (although so long as everyone is clear about how they are using terms, no harm). When I did around 1200, 150 was 50% of my calories. I usually kept it under that because I wanted to keep my protein up. If eating around 50% of carbs caused one to be dissatisfied and overeat, it shouldn't have been easy to stick at 1200, but it was.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »SAD includes an average per person per day consumption of 462g of carbs.
Here is a restatement that hopefully makes sense:
1. SAD is high carb.
2. A majority of Americans are overweight or obese.
3. A high carb diet is therefore correlated with being overweight or obese.
4. The WHY isn't as clear.
There may be no why. You have not included enough evidence to make it clear there is a why. It's like saying CA has a high number of white men. CA voted for Clinton. A high number of white men is therefore correlated with voting for Clinton. The why is not so clear.
In particular you are leaving out relevant factors in what appears to be an effort to create a misleading narrative. Let me add some of those factors:
1. SAD has a high amount of total calories, and these calories are made up of (relative to other countries) a high amount of total carbs, a high amount of total fat, and even a high amount of total protein.
2. When looked at percentage-wise, the SAD has many dissimilarities with diets in areas that are not correlated with overweight or obesity.
3. On the macro level, these dissimilarities include a higher percentage of fat, but not a higher percentage of carbs.
4. Other differences include more sugar, more highly processed snack foods, more processed and red meat, more saturated fat.
5. If you look at countries across the board, a high calorie level is correlated with being overweight or obese. High total numbers of carbs and fat are both correlated with being overweight or obese. A high carb percentage is not correlated with being overweight or obese.
None of this suggests that in a calorie-controlled diet or a WF-based diet that a high carb percentage correlates with being overweight or obese or that total number of carbs in the absence of high total numbers of fat correlates with being overweight or obese. I believe this is more responsive to what OP was wondering about. He can comment if he disagrees, of course.
You are right in that there may not be a why. Like I said, it isn't clear... maybe there is none, maybe there are several. I'm just not sure on that.
We've already gone over the high carb quantity vs. high carb percentage difference even before @stevencloser put forth a moderate carb, high calorie hypothetical. When I say "high carb," the person eating 462g per day is eating high carb regardless of whether that is 5% of his/her diet or 100% of his/her diet. That is simply a high volume of carbs. Similarly, when I started eating low carb, I did not eat LCHF. I ate low carb. Plain and simple. I ate moderate fat and moderate protein, but not high protein and not high fat. By your definition, perhaps I wasn't eating low carb. Based on actual carb quantity, I was eating low carb.
So if you have a high TDEE do you eat high everything?
Not necessarily.
Anything resembling a balanced diet would be high everything.
If your definition of "balanced" is equal calories from all macros, then yes, a person with a high enough TDEE would be eating high in all macros.
ETA: Also assumes that said person is eating at maintenance.
No, doesn't have to be equal. Just balanced. Low carb could be balanced as well. My TDEE is about 4k right now. What is "low" carb for me? Or low fat?
Regardless of your TDEE or CI, I would consider <150g to be low carb.
I wouldn't, and I find this an odd view (although so long as everyone is clear about how they are using terms, no harm). When I did around 1200, 150 was 50% of my calories. I usually kept it under that because I wanted to keep my protein up. If eating around 50% of carbs caused one to be dissatisfied and overeat, it shouldn't have been easy to stick at 1200, but it was.
What's interesting to me is how "high carb", however you want to define it, is often followed by "causes you to overeat". I have found the exact opposite, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I eat about as many carbs as I did when I was morbidly obese, but a higher overall %. Most of my calorie reduction came from fat because that was the most satiating thing to me. Why is it such a widespread generalization in the weight loss community that high carb causes overeating?3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »It sounds like we are going in circles with differing definitions. Also, it doesn't look like you understand my point. The point is much more simple than you seem to understand... a high carb diet in America correlates with a high rate of overweight / obesity. That's it. The reason I'm not bringing in fat or protein is because they fall outside of my point. I'm also not bringing in exercise because it is not a part of my point. I'm not bringing up education because it doesn't relate to my point. If you want to further speculate on WHY my point is accurate, that doesn't make my point invalid. If you want to suggest the reason is a high consumption of all macros and a high consumption of calories, then fine. That reason doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not going to that next step, but I don't mind if you do as long as you understand that the correlation of high carbs and overweight/obesity in America still exists. It's when you want to argue that Americans typically eat (i.e. SAD) low or moderate carb when we disagree. And it seems like that disagreement boils down to definition - quantity or percentage.
Again, this is similar to you continually asserting that a high white male population in CA (not percentage-wise, of course, but total) correlates to voting for Hillary Clinton. Okay, there is a correlation in that one state. It does not suggest any link between the two factors (and other more direct evidence controlling for other factors demonstrates that in fact there is no link).
The funny thing about the US carb argument is that you basically have the causation reversed. The US is a country with lots of obese people, so -- unquestionable -- is also a country where people on average eat a high calorie count. Countries where people eat a high calorie count are also -- shock! -- typically countries where people eat a high total number of carbs, because carbs are one component of calories. They also tend to be (under that logic) countries where people eat a high total number of fat grams and protein grams and, hmm, in the US that seems to be true.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »SAD includes an average per person per day consumption of 462g of carbs.
Here is a restatement that hopefully makes sense:
1. SAD is high carb.
2. A majority of Americans are overweight or obese.
3. A high carb diet is therefore correlated with being overweight or obese.
4. The WHY isn't as clear.
There may be no why. You have not included enough evidence to make it clear there is a why. It's like saying CA has a high number of white men. CA voted for Clinton. A high number of white men is therefore correlated with voting for Clinton. The why is not so clear.
In particular you are leaving out relevant factors in what appears to be an effort to create a misleading narrative. Let me add some of those factors:
1. SAD has a high amount of total calories, and these calories are made up of (relative to other countries) a high amount of total carbs, a high amount of total fat, and even a high amount of total protein.
2. When looked at percentage-wise, the SAD has many dissimilarities with diets in areas that are not correlated with overweight or obesity.
3. On the macro level, these dissimilarities include a higher percentage of fat, but not a higher percentage of carbs.
4. Other differences include more sugar, more highly processed snack foods, more processed and red meat, more saturated fat.
5. If you look at countries across the board, a high calorie level is correlated with being overweight or obese. High total numbers of carbs and fat are both correlated with being overweight or obese. A high carb percentage is not correlated with being overweight or obese.
None of this suggests that in a calorie-controlled diet or a WF-based diet that a high carb percentage correlates with being overweight or obese or that total number of carbs in the absence of high total numbers of fat correlates with being overweight or obese. I believe this is more responsive to what OP was wondering about. He can comment if he disagrees, of course.
You are right in that there may not be a why. Like I said, it isn't clear... maybe there is none, maybe there are several. I'm just not sure on that.
We've already gone over the high carb quantity vs. high carb percentage difference even before @stevencloser put forth a moderate carb, high calorie hypothetical. When I say "high carb," the person eating 462g per day is eating high carb regardless of whether that is 5% of his/her diet or 100% of his/her diet. That is simply a high volume of carbs. Similarly, when I started eating low carb, I did not eat LCHF. I ate low carb. Plain and simple. I ate moderate fat and moderate protein, but not high protein and not high fat. By your definition, perhaps I wasn't eating low carb. Based on actual carb quantity, I was eating low carb.
So if you have a high TDEE do you eat high everything?
Not necessarily.
Anything resembling a balanced diet would be high everything.
If your definition of "balanced" is equal calories from all macros, then yes, a person with a high enough TDEE would be eating high in all macros.
ETA: Also assumes that said person is eating at maintenance.
No, doesn't have to be equal. Just balanced. Low carb could be balanced as well. My TDEE is about 4k right now. What is "low" carb for me? Or low fat?
According to him, a flat number of grams which would be identical even if your TDEE was double that.
In terms of a definition of "low carb," it would be identical if your TDEE were 10 times that.
Which is silly. I'm not on a high fat diet if I eat 100 grams of fat but 10k calories any more than I am on a low carb diet when I eat 150 grams but that's half my calories for the day. Context, the single thing that gets ignored in about 90% of cases on this forum.
Yup.
And Midwesterner, that was one day. I have 364 more year to worry about.1 -
45% fat here and I average over a year 20,000 plus steps a day everyday workout 6 days a week at the gym 75 min a shot and ride a bike 18-21 miles 6 days a week all while keeping carbs under 150. All MACRO's will burn for energy NOT just carbs so think Calories not one specific CARB MACRO..lol
0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Traveler120 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It used to be believed (and still is by many) that the only possible way to complete a long endurance competition (Ironman, ultra-marathon, and even marathons) is to constantly gobble down carbs throughout the competition. ..........
On the other hand, low carbers who have become fat adapted are capable of using fat for energy at a higher rate than high carbers. ..........
Both groups have a way that works to obtain energy for endurance activities. The high carb method has been touted for decades, and the low carb method has not received as much attention... and there is less profit to be made from gel pack, energy bar, and sports drink sales.
I'd simply look at what the most successful elite marathon runners do and have been doing for decades - the Kenyans and Ethiopians. Going by the carbs map link above, these are high carb nations. Kenya is at 68% and Ethiopia at 79%. I've yet to hear about low carbing East African runners winning medals. They don't exist.
And I'm pretty sure they're not training on gel packs, energy bars and sports drinks. They simply eat lots of teff, ugali (corn flour), beans, grains, sugary tea, rice, veg, fruits, etc, just regular, affordable, carby foods that are part of the traditional diet.
Sure, the high carb method works... no question there. My point was that a LCHF method can work for distance runners as well, it just doesn't get the same attention and is not as well known.
If it truly provided an advantage, every endurance athlete on the planet would be doing it...they're pretty on top of that *kitten*.
Most endurance athletes I know have training periods where they are LCHF...but they don't live that all the time and certainly not on race day or the lead up to race day.2 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It sounds like we are going in circles with differing definitions. Also, it doesn't look like you understand my point. The point is much more simple than you seem to understand... a high carb diet in America correlates with a high rate of overweight / obesity. That's it. The reason I'm not bringing in fat or protein is because they fall outside of my point. I'm also not bringing in exercise because it is not a part of my point. I'm not bringing up education because it doesn't relate to my point. If you want to further speculate on WHY my point is accurate, that doesn't make my point invalid. If you want to suggest the reason is a high consumption of all macros and a high consumption of calories, then fine. That reason doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not going to that next step, but I don't mind if you do as long as you understand that the correlation of high carbs and overweight/obesity in America still exists. It's when you want to argue that Americans typically eat (i.e. SAD) low or moderate carb when we disagree. And it seems like that disagreement boils down to definition - quantity or percentage.
Again, this is similar to you continually asserting that a high white male population in CA (not percentage-wise, of course, but total) correlates to voting for Hillary Clinton. Okay, there is a correlation in that one state. It does not suggest any link between the two factors (and other more direct evidence controlling for other factors demonstrates that in fact there is no link).
The funny thing about the US carb argument is that you basically have the causation reversed. The US is a country with lots of obese people, so -- unquestionable -- is also a country where people on average eat a high calorie count. Countries where people eat a high calorie count are also -- shock! -- typically countries where people eat a high total number of carbs, because carbs are one component of calories. They also tend to be (under that logic) countries where people eat a high total number of fat grams and protein grams and, hmm, in the US that seems to be true.
On your first point, I've not made an assertion about how race and gender influence votes and that is not relevant to this discussion on high carbs anyway.
On the second point, I'm neither asserting nor disputing whether Americans eat high quantities of other macros as well.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »So 150 carbs would leave me with 3400 more calories. That's a lot of fat and protein.
Not every day, but on higher exercise days (days where I can eat more calories), I am often at much less than 150g and still eat 3K-4K (on less frequent occasions, as much as 6K-7K) calories. I don't find it difficult at all.
I don't really believe that but either way, there is a difference between every day and on random occasions. Bare in mind that fat is the least satiating macro for me. I guess I could drink butter but it doesn't sound appealing.
Whether you believe it or not isn't the point, but here is a recent example. Yes, I still went over calorie goals this day... maybe about 200 over TDEE. But still this was 4K calories consumed and well below 150g of carbs:
No one is asserting that a person can't eat below a certain number of total carbs on a large total calorie consumption. There are people choosing to eat at very low carb/keto levels on all sorts of calorie goals, so sure, I believe on that day that you ate less than 150 g of carbs on over 4,000 cals. I think what @Hornsby was saying he didn't believe was that you don't find it difficult to fill 3000 or more calories with nothing but fat and protein. Not that it can't be done, but first, that it is easy; second, that it is enjoyable; and third, that it is satiating.
The discussion is around whether the looking at total carb consumption in grams as the determination of whether someone is eating low, moderate, or high carbs is a helpful one. What people are suggesting is that looking at the percentage carb consumption as a part of the whole macro breakdown, is scaleable based on the number of total calories being consumed, and therefore a more helpful and consistent way of assigning that designation (low, moderate or high carbs).
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »SAD includes an average per person per day consumption of 462g of carbs.
Here is a restatement that hopefully makes sense:
1. SAD is high carb.
2. A majority of Americans are overweight or obese.
3. A high carb diet is therefore correlated with being overweight or obese.
4. The WHY isn't as clear.
There may be no why. You have not included enough evidence to make it clear there is a why. It's like saying CA has a high number of white men. CA voted for Clinton. A high number of white men is therefore correlated with voting for Clinton. The why is not so clear.
In particular you are leaving out relevant factors in what appears to be an effort to create a misleading narrative. Let me add some of those factors:
1. SAD has a high amount of total calories, and these calories are made up of (relative to other countries) a high amount of total carbs, a high amount of total fat, and even a high amount of total protein.
2. When looked at percentage-wise, the SAD has many dissimilarities with diets in areas that are not correlated with overweight or obesity.
3. On the macro level, these dissimilarities include a higher percentage of fat, but not a higher percentage of carbs.
4. Other differences include more sugar, more highly processed snack foods, more processed and red meat, more saturated fat.
5. If you look at countries across the board, a high calorie level is correlated with being overweight or obese. High total numbers of carbs and fat are both correlated with being overweight or obese. A high carb percentage is not correlated with being overweight or obese.
None of this suggests that in a calorie-controlled diet or a WF-based diet that a high carb percentage correlates with being overweight or obese or that total number of carbs in the absence of high total numbers of fat correlates with being overweight or obese. I believe this is more responsive to what OP was wondering about. He can comment if he disagrees, of course.
You are right in that there may not be a why. Like I said, it isn't clear... maybe there is none, maybe there are several. I'm just not sure on that.
We've already gone over the high carb quantity vs. high carb percentage difference even before @stevencloser put forth a moderate carb, high calorie hypothetical. When I say "high carb," the person eating 462g per day is eating high carb regardless of whether that is 5% of his/her diet or 100% of his/her diet. That is simply a high volume of carbs. Similarly, when I started eating low carb, I did not eat LCHF. I ate low carb. Plain and simple. I ate moderate fat and moderate protein, but not high protein and not high fat. By your definition, perhaps I wasn't eating low carb. Based on actual carb quantity, I was eating low carb.
So if you have a high TDEE do you eat high everything?
Not necessarily.
Anything resembling a balanced diet would be high everything.
If your definition of "balanced" is equal calories from all macros, then yes, a person with a high enough TDEE would be eating high in all macros.
ETA: Also assumes that said person is eating at maintenance.
No, doesn't have to be equal. Just balanced. Low carb could be balanced as well. My TDEE is about 4k right now. What is "low" carb for me? Or low fat?
According to him, a flat number of grams which would be identical even if your TDEE was double that.
In terms of a definition of "low carb," it would be identical if your TDEE were 10 times that.
Which is silly. I'm not on a high fat diet if I eat 100 grams of fat but 10k calories any more than I am on a low carb diet when I eat 150 grams but that's half my calories for the day. Context, the single thing that gets ignored in about 90% of cases on this forum.
Yup.
And Midwesterner, that was one day. I have 364 more year to worry about.
Most days, I don't eat that many calories (because I don't exercise as much most days). I made the point that I eat more calories (even in that 4K range) on some days because I exercise, yet I stay below 150g of carbs. Apparently that wasn't believable, so I showed a recent example so you can see how it is actually possible. In fact, I would have eaten quite a bit fewer carbs if not for low blood sugar.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It sounds like we are going in circles with differing definitions. Also, it doesn't look like you understand my point. The point is much more simple than you seem to understand... a high carb diet in America correlates with a high rate of overweight / obesity. That's it. The reason I'm not bringing in fat or protein is because they fall outside of my point. I'm also not bringing in exercise because it is not a part of my point. I'm not bringing up education because it doesn't relate to my point. If you want to further speculate on WHY my point is accurate, that doesn't make my point invalid. If you want to suggest the reason is a high consumption of all macros and a high consumption of calories, then fine. That reason doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not going to that next step, but I don't mind if you do as long as you understand that the correlation of high carbs and overweight/obesity in America still exists. It's when you want to argue that Americans typically eat (i.e. SAD) low or moderate carb when we disagree. And it seems like that disagreement boils down to definition - quantity or percentage.
Again, this is similar to you continually asserting that a high white male population in CA (not percentage-wise, of course, but total) correlates to voting for Hillary Clinton. Okay, there is a correlation in that one state. It does not suggest any link between the two factors (and other more direct evidence controlling for other factors demonstrates that in fact there is no link).
The funny thing about the US carb argument is that you basically have the causation reversed. The US is a country with lots of obese people, so -- unquestionable -- is also a country where people on average eat a high calorie count. Countries where people eat a high calorie count are also -- shock! -- typically countries where people eat a high total number of carbs, because carbs are one component of calories. They also tend to be (under that logic) countries where people eat a high total number of fat grams and protein grams and, hmm, in the US that seems to be true.
On your first point, I've not made an assertion about how race and gender influence votes and that is not relevant to this discussion on high carbs anyway.
On the second point, I'm neither asserting nor disputing whether Americans eat high quantities of other macros as well.
She didn't say that you were discussing race/gender and voting results - she was comparing the ridiculousness of your argument to the ridiculousness of trying to correlate something like the voting results example. It is a metaphor to illustrate her point, so yes, it is relevant to this discussion.
You are saying that the SAD is high carb, and therefore trying to imply that this is the reason that obesity rates are so high.
We are saying that no, the SAD is not high carb in the context of the rest of the diet (which is what matters). It is generally pretty balanced with the other two macros. And obesity is caused by overconsumption of total calories. The number of carbs is irrelevant - the energy imbalance is the causative factor here.
If your argument held any water at all, there would be no skinny/fit vegans. There are plenty of people who happily eat HCLF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. Just like there are people who happily eat LCHF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. It is overall calories that matter.8 -
Of course I know it's possible. That doesn't mean it's reasonable.
Let me ask you, can a high carb diet be "healthy" for any one?3 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It sounds like we are going in circles with differing definitions. Also, it doesn't look like you understand my point. The point is much more simple than you seem to understand... a high carb diet in America correlates with a high rate of overweight / obesity. That's it. The reason I'm not bringing in fat or protein is because they fall outside of my point. I'm also not bringing in exercise because it is not a part of my point. I'm not bringing up education because it doesn't relate to my point. If you want to further speculate on WHY my point is accurate, that doesn't make my point invalid. If you want to suggest the reason is a high consumption of all macros and a high consumption of calories, then fine. That reason doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not going to that next step, but I don't mind if you do as long as you understand that the correlation of high carbs and overweight/obesity in America still exists. It's when you want to argue that Americans typically eat (i.e. SAD) low or moderate carb when we disagree. And it seems like that disagreement boils down to definition - quantity or percentage.
Again, this is similar to you continually asserting that a high white male population in CA (not percentage-wise, of course, but total) correlates to voting for Hillary Clinton. Okay, there is a correlation in that one state. It does not suggest any link between the two factors (and other more direct evidence controlling for other factors demonstrates that in fact there is no link).
The funny thing about the US carb argument is that you basically have the causation reversed. The US is a country with lots of obese people, so -- unquestionable -- is also a country where people on average eat a high calorie count. Countries where people eat a high calorie count are also -- shock! -- typically countries where people eat a high total number of carbs, because carbs are one component of calories. They also tend to be (under that logic) countries where people eat a high total number of fat grams and protein grams and, hmm, in the US that seems to be true.
On your first point, I've not made an assertion about how race and gender influence votes and that is not relevant to this discussion on high carbs anyway.
On the second point, I'm neither asserting nor disputing whether Americans eat high quantities of other macros as well.
She didn't say that you were discussing race/gender and voting results - she was comparing the ridiculousness of your argument to the ridiculousness of trying to correlate something like the voting results example. It is a metaphor to illustrate her point, so yes, it is relevant to this discussion.
You are saying that the SAD is high carb, and therefore trying to imply that this is the reason that obesity rates are so high.
We are saying that no, the SAD is not high carb in the context of the rest of the diet (which is what matters). It is generally pretty balanced with the other two macros. And obesity is caused by overconsumption of total calories. The number of carbs is irrelevant - the energy imbalance is the causative factor here.
If your argument held any water at all, there would be no skinny/fit vegans. There are plenty of people who happily eat HCLF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. Just like there are people who happily eat LCHF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. It is overall calories that matter.
No, I'm not implying that high carb is the reason that obesity rates are so high. In fact, I have clearly stated I don't know if that is the case or not. I'm simply pointing out the correlation and stopping there because, as I've already said, I don't know the WHY or if high carb causes obesity or not.0 -
Of course I know it's possible. That doesn't mean it's reasonable.
Let me ask you, can a high carb diet be "healthy" for any one?
My previous position hasn't changed:midwesterner85 wrote: »So for the otherwise healthy person who is tracking and restricting calorie consumption to avoid over-consumption, high carb works.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It sounds like we are going in circles with differing definitions. Also, it doesn't look like you understand my point. The point is much more simple than you seem to understand... a high carb diet in America correlates with a high rate of overweight / obesity. That's it. The reason I'm not bringing in fat or protein is because they fall outside of my point. I'm also not bringing in exercise because it is not a part of my point. I'm not bringing up education because it doesn't relate to my point. If you want to further speculate on WHY my point is accurate, that doesn't make my point invalid. If you want to suggest the reason is a high consumption of all macros and a high consumption of calories, then fine. That reason doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not going to that next step, but I don't mind if you do as long as you understand that the correlation of high carbs and overweight/obesity in America still exists. It's when you want to argue that Americans typically eat (i.e. SAD) low or moderate carb when we disagree. And it seems like that disagreement boils down to definition - quantity or percentage.
Again, this is similar to you continually asserting that a high white male population in CA (not percentage-wise, of course, but total) correlates to voting for Hillary Clinton. Okay, there is a correlation in that one state. It does not suggest any link between the two factors (and other more direct evidence controlling for other factors demonstrates that in fact there is no link).
The funny thing about the US carb argument is that you basically have the causation reversed. The US is a country with lots of obese people, so -- unquestionable -- is also a country where people on average eat a high calorie count. Countries where people eat a high calorie count are also -- shock! -- typically countries where people eat a high total number of carbs, because carbs are one component of calories. They also tend to be (under that logic) countries where people eat a high total number of fat grams and protein grams and, hmm, in the US that seems to be true.
On your first point, I've not made an assertion about how race and gender influence votes and that is not relevant to this discussion on high carbs anyway.
On the second point, I'm neither asserting nor disputing whether Americans eat high quantities of other macros as well.
She didn't say that you were discussing race/gender and voting results - she was comparing the ridiculousness of your argument to the ridiculousness of trying to correlate something like the voting results example. It is a metaphor to illustrate her point, so yes, it is relevant to this discussion.
You are saying that the SAD is high carb, and therefore trying to imply that this is the reason that obesity rates are so high.
We are saying that no, the SAD is not high carb in the context of the rest of the diet (which is what matters). It is generally pretty balanced with the other two macros. And obesity is caused by overconsumption of total calories. The number of carbs is irrelevant - the energy imbalance is the causative factor here.
If your argument held any water at all, there would be no skinny/fit vegans. There are plenty of people who happily eat HCLF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. Just like there are people who happily eat LCHF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. It is overall calories that matter.
No, I'm not implying that high carb is the reason that obesity rates are so high. In fact, I have clearly stated I don't know if that is the case or not. I'm simply pointing out the correlation and stopping there because, as I've already said, I don't know the WHY or if high carb causes obesity or not.
There is no such correlation though. Look at people like the Okinawans, they have huge amounts of carbs in their diet, both as percentage of total calories as well as grams. No rate of overweight/obesity to speak of.2 -
Other than the restricting calorie intake part, I agree and may have misunderstood you. I don't agree that a balanced diet that is high in all three macros is high carb but whatever. We can just disagree on that point lol. I don't care as much now that I don't think you are saying I am eating an unhealthy diet
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It sounds like we are going in circles with differing definitions. Also, it doesn't look like you understand my point. The point is much more simple than you seem to understand... a high carb diet in America correlates with a high rate of overweight / obesity. That's it. The reason I'm not bringing in fat or protein is because they fall outside of my point. I'm also not bringing in exercise because it is not a part of my point. I'm not bringing up education because it doesn't relate to my point. If you want to further speculate on WHY my point is accurate, that doesn't make my point invalid. If you want to suggest the reason is a high consumption of all macros and a high consumption of calories, then fine. That reason doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not going to that next step, but I don't mind if you do as long as you understand that the correlation of high carbs and overweight/obesity in America still exists. It's when you want to argue that Americans typically eat (i.e. SAD) low or moderate carb when we disagree. And it seems like that disagreement boils down to definition - quantity or percentage.
Again, this is similar to you continually asserting that a high white male population in CA (not percentage-wise, of course, but total) correlates to voting for Hillary Clinton. Okay, there is a correlation in that one state. It does not suggest any link between the two factors (and other more direct evidence controlling for other factors demonstrates that in fact there is no link).
The funny thing about the US carb argument is that you basically have the causation reversed. The US is a country with lots of obese people, so -- unquestionable -- is also a country where people on average eat a high calorie count. Countries where people eat a high calorie count are also -- shock! -- typically countries where people eat a high total number of carbs, because carbs are one component of calories. They also tend to be (under that logic) countries where people eat a high total number of fat grams and protein grams and, hmm, in the US that seems to be true.
On your first point, I've not made an assertion about how race and gender influence votes and that is not relevant to this discussion on high carbs anyway.
On the second point, I'm neither asserting nor disputing whether Americans eat high quantities of other macros as well.
She didn't say that you were discussing race/gender and voting results - she was comparing the ridiculousness of your argument to the ridiculousness of trying to correlate something like the voting results example. It is a metaphor to illustrate her point, so yes, it is relevant to this discussion.
You are saying that the SAD is high carb, and therefore trying to imply that this is the reason that obesity rates are so high.
We are saying that no, the SAD is not high carb in the context of the rest of the diet (which is what matters). It is generally pretty balanced with the other two macros. And obesity is caused by overconsumption of total calories. The number of carbs is irrelevant - the energy imbalance is the causative factor here.
If your argument held any water at all, there would be no skinny/fit vegans. There are plenty of people who happily eat HCLF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. Just like there are people who happily eat LCHF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. It is overall calories that matter.
No, I'm not implying that high carb is the reason that obesity rates are so high. In fact, I have clearly stated I don't know if that is the case or not. I'm simply pointing out the correlation and stopping there because, as I've already said, I don't know the WHY or if high carb causes obesity or not.
There is no such correlation though. Look at people like the Okinawans, they have huge amounts of carbs in their diet, both as percentage of total calories as well as grams. No rate of overweight/obesity to speak of.
The correlation I pointed out is limited to Americans. Sure, perhaps there is not a similar correlation in other places. That might help to establish the "why" (cause(s) or lack thereof) part that I have no observations or opinions about so far.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It sounds like we are going in circles with differing definitions. Also, it doesn't look like you understand my point. The point is much more simple than you seem to understand... a high carb diet in America correlates with a high rate of overweight / obesity. That's it. The reason I'm not bringing in fat or protein is because they fall outside of my point. I'm also not bringing in exercise because it is not a part of my point. I'm not bringing up education because it doesn't relate to my point. If you want to further speculate on WHY my point is accurate, that doesn't make my point invalid. If you want to suggest the reason is a high consumption of all macros and a high consumption of calories, then fine. That reason doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not going to that next step, but I don't mind if you do as long as you understand that the correlation of high carbs and overweight/obesity in America still exists. It's when you want to argue that Americans typically eat (i.e. SAD) low or moderate carb when we disagree. And it seems like that disagreement boils down to definition - quantity or percentage.
Again, this is similar to you continually asserting that a high white male population in CA (not percentage-wise, of course, but total) correlates to voting for Hillary Clinton. Okay, there is a correlation in that one state. It does not suggest any link between the two factors (and other more direct evidence controlling for other factors demonstrates that in fact there is no link).
The funny thing about the US carb argument is that you basically have the causation reversed. The US is a country with lots of obese people, so -- unquestionable -- is also a country where people on average eat a high calorie count. Countries where people eat a high calorie count are also -- shock! -- typically countries where people eat a high total number of carbs, because carbs are one component of calories. They also tend to be (under that logic) countries where people eat a high total number of fat grams and protein grams and, hmm, in the US that seems to be true.
On your first point, I've not made an assertion about how race and gender influence votes and that is not relevant to this discussion on high carbs anyway.
On the second point, I'm neither asserting nor disputing whether Americans eat high quantities of other macros as well.
She didn't say that you were discussing race/gender and voting results - she was comparing the ridiculousness of your argument to the ridiculousness of trying to correlate something like the voting results example. It is a metaphor to illustrate her point, so yes, it is relevant to this discussion.
You are saying that the SAD is high carb, and therefore trying to imply that this is the reason that obesity rates are so high.
We are saying that no, the SAD is not high carb in the context of the rest of the diet (which is what matters). It is generally pretty balanced with the other two macros. And obesity is caused by overconsumption of total calories. The number of carbs is irrelevant - the energy imbalance is the causative factor here.
If your argument held any water at all, there would be no skinny/fit vegans. There are plenty of people who happily eat HCLF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. Just like there are people who happily eat LCHF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. It is overall calories that matter.
No, I'm not implying that high carb is the reason that obesity rates are so high. In fact, I have clearly stated I don't know if that is the case or not. I'm simply pointing out the correlation and stopping there because, as I've already said, I don't know the WHY or if high carb causes obesity or not.
There is no such correlation though. Look at people like the Okinawans, they have huge amounts of carbs in their diet, both as percentage of total calories as well as grams. No rate of overweight/obesity to speak of.
The correlation I pointed out is limited to Americans. Sure, perhaps there is not a similar correlation in other places. That might help to establish the "why" (cause(s) or lack thereof) part that I have no observations or opinions about so far.
The fact that it doesn't extend beyond America, disproves the correlation...8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It sounds like we are going in circles with differing definitions. Also, it doesn't look like you understand my point. The point is much more simple than you seem to understand... a high carb diet in America correlates with a high rate of overweight / obesity. That's it. The reason I'm not bringing in fat or protein is because they fall outside of my point. I'm also not bringing in exercise because it is not a part of my point. I'm not bringing up education because it doesn't relate to my point. If you want to further speculate on WHY my point is accurate, that doesn't make my point invalid. If you want to suggest the reason is a high consumption of all macros and a high consumption of calories, then fine. That reason doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not going to that next step, but I don't mind if you do as long as you understand that the correlation of high carbs and overweight/obesity in America still exists. It's when you want to argue that Americans typically eat (i.e. SAD) low or moderate carb when we disagree. And it seems like that disagreement boils down to definition - quantity or percentage.
Again, this is similar to you continually asserting that a high white male population in CA (not percentage-wise, of course, but total) correlates to voting for Hillary Clinton. Okay, there is a correlation in that one state. It does not suggest any link between the two factors (and other more direct evidence controlling for other factors demonstrates that in fact there is no link).
The funny thing about the US carb argument is that you basically have the causation reversed. The US is a country with lots of obese people, so -- unquestionable -- is also a country where people on average eat a high calorie count. Countries where people eat a high calorie count are also -- shock! -- typically countries where people eat a high total number of carbs, because carbs are one component of calories. They also tend to be (under that logic) countries where people eat a high total number of fat grams and protein grams and, hmm, in the US that seems to be true.
On your first point, I've not made an assertion about how race and gender influence votes and that is not relevant to this discussion on high carbs anyway.
On the second point, I'm neither asserting nor disputing whether Americans eat high quantities of other macros as well.
She didn't say that you were discussing race/gender and voting results - she was comparing the ridiculousness of your argument to the ridiculousness of trying to correlate something like the voting results example. It is a metaphor to illustrate her point, so yes, it is relevant to this discussion.
You are saying that the SAD is high carb, and therefore trying to imply that this is the reason that obesity rates are so high.
We are saying that no, the SAD is not high carb in the context of the rest of the diet (which is what matters). It is generally pretty balanced with the other two macros. And obesity is caused by overconsumption of total calories. The number of carbs is irrelevant - the energy imbalance is the causative factor here.
If your argument held any water at all, there would be no skinny/fit vegans. There are plenty of people who happily eat HCLF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. Just like there are people who happily eat LCHF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. It is overall calories that matter.
No, I'm not implying that high carb is the reason that obesity rates are so high. In fact, I have clearly stated I don't know if that is the case or not. I'm simply pointing out the correlation and stopping there because, as I've already said, I don't know the WHY or if high carb causes obesity or not.
There is no such correlation though. Look at people like the Okinawans, they have huge amounts of carbs in their diet, both as percentage of total calories as well as grams. No rate of overweight/obesity to speak of.
The correlation I pointed out is limited to Americans. Sure, perhaps there is not a similar correlation in other places. That might help to establish the "why" (cause(s) or lack thereof) part that I have no observations or opinions about so far.
The fact that it doesn't extend beyond America, disproves the correlation...
Perhaps I should clarify: I'm not sure if the correlation exists elsewhere. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. The correlation I pointed out was specifically that Americans eat high carb and Americans have high rates of being overweight and obese. I didn't look to see if the correlation does or does not exist in Okinawa, England, China, etc. "I pointed out" is the key phrase. That doesn't mean there isn't a correlation elsewhere, just that I didn't point it out if there is.0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »It sounds like we are going in circles with differing definitions. Also, it doesn't look like you understand my point. The point is much more simple than you seem to understand... a high carb diet in America correlates with a high rate of overweight / obesity. That's it. The reason I'm not bringing in fat or protein is because they fall outside of my point. I'm also not bringing in exercise because it is not a part of my point. I'm not bringing up education because it doesn't relate to my point. If you want to further speculate on WHY my point is accurate, that doesn't make my point invalid. If you want to suggest the reason is a high consumption of all macros and a high consumption of calories, then fine. That reason doesn't invalidate my point. I'm not going to that next step, but I don't mind if you do as long as you understand that the correlation of high carbs and overweight/obesity in America still exists. It's when you want to argue that Americans typically eat (i.e. SAD) low or moderate carb when we disagree. And it seems like that disagreement boils down to definition - quantity or percentage.
Again, this is similar to you continually asserting that a high white male population in CA (not percentage-wise, of course, but total) correlates to voting for Hillary Clinton. Okay, there is a correlation in that one state. It does not suggest any link between the two factors (and other more direct evidence controlling for other factors demonstrates that in fact there is no link).
The funny thing about the US carb argument is that you basically have the causation reversed. The US is a country with lots of obese people, so -- unquestionable -- is also a country where people on average eat a high calorie count. Countries where people eat a high calorie count are also -- shock! -- typically countries where people eat a high total number of carbs, because carbs are one component of calories. They also tend to be (under that logic) countries where people eat a high total number of fat grams and protein grams and, hmm, in the US that seems to be true.
On your first point, I've not made an assertion about how race and gender influence votes and that is not relevant to this discussion on high carbs anyway.
On the second point, I'm neither asserting nor disputing whether Americans eat high quantities of other macros as well.
She didn't say that you were discussing race/gender and voting results - she was comparing the ridiculousness of your argument to the ridiculousness of trying to correlate something like the voting results example. It is a metaphor to illustrate her point, so yes, it is relevant to this discussion.
You are saying that the SAD is high carb, and therefore trying to imply that this is the reason that obesity rates are so high.
We are saying that no, the SAD is not high carb in the context of the rest of the diet (which is what matters). It is generally pretty balanced with the other two macros. And obesity is caused by overconsumption of total calories. The number of carbs is irrelevant - the energy imbalance is the causative factor here.
If your argument held any water at all, there would be no skinny/fit vegans. There are plenty of people who happily eat HCLF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. Just like there are people who happily eat LCHF diets within their TDEE and maintain a healthy weight. It is overall calories that matter.
No, I'm not implying that high carb is the reason that obesity rates are so high. In fact, I have clearly stated I don't know if that is the case or not. I'm simply pointing out the correlation and stopping there because, as I've already said, I don't know the WHY or if high carb causes obesity or not.
Okay, so your only argument in this thread is that the SAD is high carb.
Well, that's your opinion, but no, it is not. Someone with a TDEE of 2,200 calories eating 40% of their calories in carbs, that would be 220 g of carbs and would be balanced with the other macros. That's not high carb - that is just a balanced diet.
And I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the point of so fervently making your argument in this thread while simultaneously saying things likeBut for the otherwise healthy person eating a SAD (high carb) diet, the question is about satiety. While everyone is different, 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese. This statistic makes me think that many Americans are still hungry after maintenance when eating SAD, thus leading to consumption of excess calories.
So you are worried that Americans' "high carb" diet is causing a satiety issue, which is causing so many to overeat? There is no magic number of carbs that is going to make a person ravenous to the point of eating themselves into obesity. If macros are balanced with an adequate amount of fat/protein intake, satiety due to the simple number of carbohydrate grams would not be an issue.
*edit because I left out the TDEE calories for my example5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions