Carbs versus Fats. This site needs to update its recommendations.

2»

Replies

  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited March 2017
    I have familial hypercholesterlemia. There is no debate to be had for me.

    Fortunately, I can set my own macros here and have.

    I follow a low fat plan, keep an eye on a protein goal (I aim to eat at least 100 grams per day) and fill in the rest with carbohydrates. I also, thanks to being able to customize what I see, follow my intake of saturated fat and be sure to keep this low.

    Thanks to my diet, weight loss, and exercise, I have lowered my cholesterol to within regular range and I have good ratios. I do not need statins. I am very fortunate. A lot of people with FH are unable to do this. It helps that I've only inherited the gene from one parent.

    ETA: On the heels of what psuLemon said, fats are not satiating for me. Protein and fiber and starch? Those three are my love language.
  • RuNaRoUnDaFiEld
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld Posts: 5,864 Member
    Half the links in the first post only mention an insulin response with carbs and sugars.

    Yet they were supposedly written by Doctors who should be smart enough to realise that your insulin spikes with proteins also.
    Makes me not read any thing else they say.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    Current global research confirms that advice given by Government Health Bodies everywhere, is in serious need of review.
    It now seems that Carbohydrates are the culprits, while Fats are the friends.

    How do other folks on here feel about this?


    Carbohydrates are the culprits for what, and fats are the friends to whom?




  • AlexandraCarlyle
    AlexandraCarlyle Posts: 1,603 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Current global research confirms that advice given by Government Health Bodies everywhere, is in serious need of review.
    It now seems that Carbohydrates are the culprits, while Fats are the friends.

    How do other folks on here feel about this?


    Carbohydrates are the culprits for what, and fats are the friends to whom?




    The articles outline this.
    Really interesting to see all the responses here, I must take a moment to thank you all for being so civil.
    I posted a discussion on this subject in another (non-food-based) forum and I can't repeat some of the responses I got. Really.
    I have no idea where people get off being so rude....
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Current global research confirms that advice given by Government Health Bodies everywhere, is in serious need of review.
    It now seems that Carbohydrates are the culprits, while Fats are the friends.

    How do other folks on here feel about this?


    Carbohydrates are the culprits for what, and fats are the friends to whom?




    Interestingly, there are cultures that thrive on both.

    My point being that contrary to what some might like to think (not you, WinoGelato), I don't think that there's 100% definitive answer to this debate.

    I have seen reference made to some preliminary research pointing to there being a genetic factor behind which macro distribution best suits a certain individual.

    We can only hope that more study is done to hone in on such a finding and put discussions like this to bed for once and for all. I've grown weary of the need for there to be a "winner" in these types of discussions. I know a lot of us have.

    OP, you've found out how to set a macro distribution to suit your preferences. I wish you the best with your efforts.
  • Drueru
    Drueru Posts: 46 Member
    This site does need to update it's recommendations. I would love to be able to tweak my protein, carb and fat levels but there isn't an option (that I know of) to do so.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    Drueru wrote: »
    This site does need to update it's recommendations. I would love to be able to tweak my protein, carb and fat levels but there isn't an option (that I know of) to do so.

    6th post in this thread guides you through this.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Drueru wrote: »
    This site does need to update it's recommendations. I would love to be able to tweak my protein, carb and fat levels but there isn't an option (that I know of) to do so.
    I'm brand new to the site. I had no idea we could do that. kind of you to suggest it, thank you.
    How do I do that, please?

    From web version:

    From Homepage select Goals.
    Click Edit button next to Daily Nutrition Goals
    Use Dropdowns for Macronutrients to set % (5% chunks only in free version)
    Ensure they add up to 100%
    Click Save Changes

    From app

    From Homepage tap ... and select Goals
    Select Calorie and Macronutrient Goals
    Set % (ensuring they add up to 100%)
    Tap back arrow until back at homepage

  • kgirlhart
    kgirlhart Posts: 5,184 Member
    Drueru wrote: »
    This site does need to update it's recommendations. I would love to be able to tweak my protein, carb and fat levels but there isn't an option (that I know of) to do so.

    If you go into "goals" you can change your macro percentages.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Drueru wrote: »
    This site does need to update it's recommendations. I would love to be able to tweak my protein, carb and fat levels but there isn't an option (that I know of) to do so.

    You can do that...
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,430 MFP Moderator
    Drueru wrote: »
    This site does need to update it's recommendations. I would love to be able to tweak my protein, carb and fat levels but there isn't an option (that I know of) to do so.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/account/my_goals

    You can do custom goals in that link.
  • AFGP11
    AFGP11 Posts: 142 Member
    Hahahaha! I read some Mercola and David Wolfe and thought I knew everything about nutrition once too.

    Then I actually educated myself on nutrition, dropped the fad diets and lost 60 pounds.

    Good luck with all of that everyone! Enjoy all your crazy food rules! I hated it when I did it and it didn't make me any healthier (actually all that meat and fat made my blood pressure sky rocket) but if it works for you, that's great.
  • AlexandraCarlyle
    AlexandraCarlyle Posts: 1,603 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    Probably based on how you wrote the OP. You essentially tell people who are eating carbs that they are unhealthy because fat guidelines are erroneous, which completely ignores the healthiest countries in the world are 70% carb based, the amount of research already done to date and backed up your view with YouTube and NYT articles as opposed to scientific research.

    In general, bashing one diet in support of another is pretty much not going to end well. At least that is the experience in my 5 years of modding this site.

    I wasn't bashing anything, I was merely pointing to articles that did so. I did open it up for discussion, and with regard to diabetes II specifically, it seems clear that diabetics have hitherto been given detrimental, not to say harmful information....

    But as I stated, the same post here elicited a far different response here to elsewhere.
    So it can't be based on the OP.
    It seems to me that people here are more courteous.
    Of course, I have no way of knowing how the other site was moderated, but it seems moderation is effective here, and that therefore there are excellent standards of contribution. :)

  • The fact is you may eat what ever amount of carbs and fats you choose no matter what MFP tells you.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,097 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    It is true that we don't actually need carbs (the body makes is own sugar from fat and protein), but as you say, carbs are found in a lot of foods that provide nutrients we do need, and those foods tend to be delicious, and people tend to like delicious food.

    My point is that Fat per se isn't bad for you, but most dietary recommendations are that you cut it out or restrict intake, to specific fats (such as oils found in flax, olives, avocados and fish). Fats don't need to be reduced or eliminated. It's a globally-accepted premise, due to much influence from the 'wrong' quarters, but it;s a trend that seriously needs reversing.
    And it's nothing new, either. But the voices that have needed to be heard, are only just being heard, now.

    So interesting to be discussing this with you!

    The only fats that have been globally accepted as beneficial are MUFA.

    How can you say that when EFAs are PUFAs?
  • Niples_
    Niples_ Posts: 53 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    How do other folks on here feel about this?
    I like carbs and carbs like me.

    I do dislike set macro percentages though (restriction adversely affects adherence long term) so when I'm food logging I set minimums for protein & fat and rest of my calorie allowance comes from whatever macro I fancy on the day or best suits that day's activity within my overall calorie allowance.
    So on a big cycling day I become a carb monster. :)

    Also feel it's just as silly to demonise carbs as it clearly was to demonise fats.
    There's a huge amount of denial amongst overweight people about the fact they simply ate too much.
    Hence the constant quest to find a magic bullet whether it's a particular macro / supplement / pill or potion.

    If you look at all the latest Broscience that have been backed by real science. That is exactly their recommendation whether losing gaining or maintaining. Calculate calories needed. Set minimum protein for muscles, set minimum fats for hormones and joints, and fill the remaining calories with whatever tickles your fancy.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    Niples_ wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    How do other folks on here feel about this?
    I like carbs and carbs like me.

    I do dislike set macro percentages though (restriction adversely affects adherence long term) so when I'm food logging I set minimums for protein & fat and rest of my calorie allowance comes from whatever macro I fancy on the day or best suits that day's activity within my overall calorie allowance.
    So on a big cycling day I become a carb monster. :)

    Also feel it's just as silly to demonise carbs as it clearly was to demonise fats.
    There's a huge amount of denial amongst overweight people about the fact they simply ate too much.
    Hence the constant quest to find a magic bullet whether it's a particular macro / supplement / pill or potion.

    If you look at all the latest Broscience that have been backed by real science. That is exactly their recommendation whether losing gaining or maintaining. Calculate calories needed. Set minimum protein for muscles, set minimum fats for hormones and joints, and fill the remaining calories with whatever tickles your fancy.

    Sounds vaguely familiar. From a post over four years ago here on MFP: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/819055/setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets/p1
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,430 MFP Moderator
    psuLemon wrote: »
    It is true that we don't actually need carbs (the body makes is own sugar from fat and protein), but as you say, carbs are found in a lot of foods that provide nutrients we do need, and those foods tend to be delicious, and people tend to like delicious food.

    My point is that Fat per se isn't bad for you, but most dietary recommendations are that you cut it out or restrict intake, to specific fats (such as oils found in flax, olives, avocados and fish). Fats don't need to be reduced or eliminated. It's a globally-accepted premise, due to much influence from the 'wrong' quarters, but it;s a trend that seriously needs reversing.
    And it's nothing new, either. But the voices that have needed to be heard, are only just being heard, now.

    So interesting to be discussing this with you!

    The only fats that have been globally accepted as beneficial are MUFA.

    How can you say that when EFAs are PUFAs?

    You are definitely right. I don't know what I was thinking.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    edited March 2017
    psuLemon wrote: »
    It is true that we don't actually need carbs (the body makes is own sugar from fat and protein), but as you say, carbs are found in a lot of foods that provide nutrients we do need, and those foods tend to be delicious, and people tend to like delicious food.

    My point is that Fat per se isn't bad for you, but most dietary recommendations are that you cut it out or restrict intake, to specific fats (such as oils found in flax, olives, avocados and fish). Fats don't need to be reduced or eliminated. It's a globally-accepted premise, due to much influence from the 'wrong' quarters, but it;s a trend that seriously needs reversing.
    And it's nothing new, either. But the voices that have needed to be heard, are only just being heard, now.

    So interesting to be discussing this with you!

    The only fats that have been globally accepted as beneficial are MUFA.

    How can you say that when EFAs are PUFAs?

    The thing with PUFAs is that you really don't need much. The ratio of w-3 to w-6 is what's really important. Last I saw, so long as you can hit a 1:1 ratio, you really only need about 5g/day, total.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited March 2017
    Might or might not come back for this later but you can change the macros to fit your individual choice of diet and the calories would still calculate the same. No need to push your own choice as a standard when no one standard fits everybody anyway.

    ETA: I'm just as likely to listen to someone who calls themselves "Butter Bob" as I am to someone who calls themselves "Banana Girl".
  • AlexandraCarlyle
    AlexandraCarlyle Posts: 1,603 Member
    Nice to see the Daily Mail has found spare time to encourage/advocate/plug LCHF in between their brave attempt to classify everything in the world as either a carcinogen or a cancer-preventing agent.

    Thank you for your input, @HeliumIsNoble, I can totally see your PoV....
    Interestingly, Wikipedia has no banned the Sun, the D.Express and the D.Mail as reliable sources of info for misleading, untruthful and inflammatory content. I daresay this doesn't apply to every category (currently, we're talking racism and immigration issues, specifically) but I fully take on board the view that if it's the DM, one should take 'everything with a pinch of salt' - which has coincidentally in and of itself, had unfair bad press! :D

    However, I don't think that one can lump the whole of the newspaper and all of its articles into one category. It IS accurate, with regard to the link I originally posted, and it's not all lies and misleading stuff.....
This discussion has been closed.