High carb
Options
Replies
-
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.
again, people like to overcomplicate simple concepts...
eat too many calories = weight gain
eat less calories = weight loss
barring a medical condition carbs has nothing to do with it.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
You also keep harping on this point. You seem to ignore the fact that many Americans have sedentary jobs, we have cars, we have easy access to all of the information we need from our homes. Food is affordable and widely available, especially calorie dense foods. All of these things have contributed to the obesity crisis. If the SAD even was high carb and was considered a causative factor in the obesity rates in America, it would be a tiny, fractional piece of the pie. Not even worth considering, honestly. Especially considering the example @stevencloser gave with Okinawa and the fact that HCLF is a sustainable way of eating for many healthy-weight people.2 -
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.
again, people like to overcomplicate simple concepts...
eat too many calories = weight gain
eat less calories = weight loss
barring a medical condition carbs has nothing to do with it.
Agreed.0 -
I am getting visions of a dog, running around in circles, attempting to catch it's tail...3
-
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
You also keep harping on this point. You seem to ignore the fact that many Americans have sedentary jobs, we have cars, we have easy access to all of the information we need from our homes. Food is affordable and widely available, especially calorie dense foods. All of these things have contributed to the obesity crisis. If the SAD even was high carb and was considered a causative factor in the obesity rates in America, it would be a tiny, fractional piece of the pie. Not even worth considering, honestly. Especially considering the example @stevencloser gave with Okinawa and the fact that HCLF is a sustainable way of eating for many healthy-weight people.
I keep making that point because others (including you) keep misunderstanding it. My point isn't that high carb causes obesity... not sure why everyone seems to come to that conclusion despite that I've been very clear about what my point means and what it doesn't mean.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
You could literally replace this with "high fat" or "high protein" and it would still apply. I'm not sure why you are fixating on carbs.5 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt 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.
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 example
First, we've already discussed the average per person per day consumption of Americans and it is much higher than 220g of carbs.
I don't think you understand my argument... which is really more of an observation than an argument. The question of why is the argument. While I thought to explore the possibility that Americans over-consume because they are hungry even after eating their maintenance calories (and briefly mentioned this, as you pointed out), we can't even agree on the more basic observation about whether Americans eat low, moderate, or high carb... to discuss quantity of consumption as a whole without first agreeing about quantity of consumption of a single macro-nutrient? I decided I would rather start small first.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
You could literally replace this with "high fat" or "high protein" and it would still apply. I'm not sure why you are fixating on carbs.
High Carbs is the topic of this thread, not high protein or high fat.1 -
Don't Americans also eat a higher percentage of animal protein and more specifically red meat and processed meat than most?2
-
midwesterner85 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt 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.
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 example
First, we've already discussed the average per person per day consumption of Americans and it is much higher than 220g of carbs.
I don't think you understand my argument... which is really more of an observation than an argument. The question of why is the argument. While I thought to explore the possibility that Americans over-consume because they are hungry even after eating their maintenance calories (and briefly mentioned this, as you pointed out), we can't even agree on the more basic observation about whether Americans eat low, moderate, or high carb... to discuss quantity of consumption as a whole without first agreeing about quantity of consumption of a single macro-nutrient? I decided I would rather start small first.
Americans are eating more carbs than that on average because they're eating more calories than that on average. You can eat 40% of your calories as carbs on 1200 calories (120 g carb) or on 4,000 calories (400 g carb). This does not make the 1,200 calorie person "low carb" anymore than it makes the 4,000 calorie person "high carb." It is a diet with macros balanced proportionally to calorie intake.
Either everyone in this thread is really dense and can't understand your point, or you're just doing a really bad job of communicating it. In situations like this, the latter is usually the issue.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
You could literally replace this with "high fat" or "high protein" and it would still apply. I'm not sure why you are fixating on carbs.
High Carbs is the topic of this thread, not high protein or high fat.
But what she's saying makes sense and what we are trying to get you to understand.
I could literally take every word you've said in this thread, put it into a Word document, replace the word "carb" with "protein" or "fat" and say the same thing you've been saying about the SAD with a different macro.
Would you argue with the person saying "I don't know guys, the SAD is a high fat diet, and 2/3 of America is obese... I'm just saying there's a correlation"? Would you come back to them and say "No it's not, it's high carb"?
6 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt 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.
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 example
First, we've already discussed the average per person per day consumption of Americans and it is much higher than 220g of carbs.
I don't think you understand my argument... which is really more of an observation than an argument. The question of why is the argument. While I thought to explore the possibility that Americans over-consume because they are hungry even after eating their maintenance calories (and briefly mentioned this, as you pointed out), we can't even agree on the more basic observation about whether Americans eat low, moderate, or high carb... to discuss quantity of consumption as a whole without first agreeing about quantity of consumption of a single macro-nutrient? I decided I would rather start small first.
Americans are eating more carbs than that on average because they're eating more calories than that on average. You can eat 40% of your calories as carbs on 1200 calories (120 g carb) or on 4,000 calories (400 g carb). This does not make the 1,200 calorie person "low carb" anymore than it makes the 4,000 calorie person "high carb." It is a diet with macros balanced proportionally to calorie intake.
Either everyone in this thread is really dense and can't understand your point, or you're just doing a really bad job of communicating it. In situations like this, the latter is usually the issue.
I think it is a mixture. I'm probably not communicating my point very well, but I've tried several times and people are still reading points that I'm not making. In fact, I've been clear that the common misunderstanding (that I'm arguing high carb causes obesity) is definitely not my point.0 -
I think people are taking issue with the usual accepted definition of a low carb diet which is a diet with fewer than 100-150g of carbs per day. This is roughly the minimum carbs (glucose) required by a (non-fat adapted) body per day - the brain, RBC's and such that can't use other fuel easily, or at all. If one eats fewer than 100-150g of glucose in a day, chances are they are making some of their own glucose and/or using ketones for fuel.
That 100-150g of carbs per day can really vary as a macro percentage. Low carb can be zero to 40% or so of a person's caloric intake. It depends on how much one is eating in a day. It isn't some set macro percentage.
I would agree that most Americans eat high carb, and high everything else. Too much food. Too many calories. Too much of everything.
3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
You could literally replace this with "high fat" or "high protein" and it would still apply. I'm not sure why you are fixating on carbs.
High Carbs is the topic of this thread, not high protein or high fat.
Does not change the fact that @amusedmonkey is right...4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »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.
I don't think it has anything to do with carbs....American eat a *kitten* ton of food...much of which is both high carb and high fat...a lot of "junk" food (which is consumed in abundance in the SAD) is both. The SAD consists of a lot of high calorie, low nutrient foods...I don't think you can just say it's carbohydrates that make the SAD...it's a ton of crap food eaten in abundance that makes the SAD...and again, much of it is as high fat as it is carb.
I eat a relatively higher carb diet due to eating vegetarian 3-4 days per week...most of my carbs are whole or minimally processed...tons of veg, couple servings of fruit, whole grains, legumes, lentils (lots of lentils), whole food starches like potatoes and sweet potatoes, rice, pasta, etc...
Obesity is on the rise in countries that have moved away from more traditional diets (many of which are high carbohydrate diets) and are incorporating more high calorie, low nutrient foods into their everyday...5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt 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.
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 example
First, we've already discussed the average per person per day consumption of Americans and it is much higher than 220g of carbs.
I don't think you understand my argument... which is really more of an observation than an argument. The question of why is the argument. While I thought to explore the possibility that Americans over-consume because they are hungry even after eating their maintenance calories (and briefly mentioned this, as you pointed out), we can't even agree on the more basic observation about whether Americans eat low, moderate, or high carb... to discuss quantity of consumption as a whole without first agreeing about quantity of consumption of a single macro-nutrient? I decided I would rather start small first.
Americans are eating more carbs than that on average because they're eating more calories than that on average. You can eat 40% of your calories as carbs on 1200 calories (120 g carb) or on 4,000 calories (400 g carb). This does not make the 1,200 calorie person "low carb" anymore than it makes the 4,000 calorie person "high carb." It is a diet with macros balanced proportionally to calorie intake.
Either everyone in this thread is really dense and can't understand your point, or you're just doing a really bad job of communicating it. In situations like this, the latter is usually the issue.
I think it is a mixture. I'm probably not communicating my point very well, but I've tried several times and people are still reading points that I'm not making. In fact, I've been clear that the common misunderstanding (that I'm arguing high carb causes obesity) is definitely not my point.
Yep you're simply saying there's a correlation between high carb and obesity (there is not), while ignoring that fat and protein are just as high when going by your (bad) definition of what high carb is. And you're doing that not to imply that it's causative, but...6 -
I think people are taking issue with the usual accepted definition of a low carb diet which is a diet with fewer than 100-150g of carbs per day. This is roughly the minimum carbs (glucose) required by a (non-fat adapted) body per day - the brain, RBC's and such that can't use other fuel easily, or at all. If one eats fewer than 100-150g of glucose in a day, chances are they are making some of their own glucose and/or using ketones for fuel.
That 100-150g of carbs per day can really vary as a macro percentage. Low carb can be zero to 40% or so of a person's caloric intake. It depends on how much one is eating in a day. It isn't some set macro percentage.
I would agree that most Americans eat high carb, and high everything else. Too much food. Too many calories. Too much of everything.
Usual accepted definition... by whose standards? In studies I've seen run comparing low carb to high carb diets in controlled living situations, they always run the test diets by percentages and define them that way.0 -
It's established that insulin causes satiety. Carbohydrates don't 'cause more hunger. This makes sense, since you would want an appropriate feedback to stop the organism eating.
A good amount of my information and thinking has come from Stephan Guyenet (an obesity researcher). He was really the catalyst that changed my mind on carbohydrates.
Here's a good article on insulin not causing you to be hungry.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/always-hungry-its-probably-not-your.html0 -
It's established that insulin causes satiety. Carbohydrates don't 'cause more hunger. This makes sense, since you would want an appropriate feedback to stop the organism eating.
A good amount of my information and thinking has come from Stephan Guyenet (an obesity researcher). He was really the catalyst that changed my mind on carbohydrates.
Here's a good article on insulin not causing you to be hungry.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com.au/2016/01/always-hungry-its-probably-not-your.html
Blanket statements like "it's established" don't usually go over well here, especially on a topic that varies widely by the individual like satiety.
Many of the LCHF keto crew will tell you carbs aren't satiating at all and for them, it's high fat that fills them up. Others here will tell you the opposite and it's carbs they find filling.
Personally I do best with a balance but higher protein breakfasts, for example, tide me over well.0
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