Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
low carb vs low fat new research says it doesnt really matter
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Round and round we go. It all comes down to personal preference. If low carb works for one, its perfectly fine if it doesn't work for someone else. Same with low fat, vegan, paleo, counting calories, intuitive eating and so on.
Would you agree with the first poster than 30% carbs is not real low carb and that low fat is not as good an approach if it happens to work for you? Because it seems to me the first poster is the one who started the "my diet is better than your diet" thing.
I very much agree that different ways of eating will work for different people. The issue is that for many of us it's hard to control calories without a strategy with food so available and without a lifestyle that is necessarily active. How to address this is different for different people.
I'm currently running a few experiments to try and see what I think works best for me, since I find maintenance kind of challenging in that it's easy to get complacent.
30% carbs - it depends on who you ask. The standard low carb dieter would find that high but when I was given a "low" carb diet by 2 different dietitians (fully accredited, not nutritionists) 30% was considered low. I personally don't care for a low fat diet but I know people who have a hard time eating a higher percentage. I know people who can't tolerate meat and people who can't tolerate a lot of fiber. They all have the ability to lose weight based on what they can work with because, as is often said around here, it comes down to calories. Different paths to the same destination so to speak. As far as who started it, this is, in my honest opinion, just another version of "my diet is better than your diet" that is beaten to death around here, however entertaining it is.1 -
LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »LowCarb4Me2016 wrote: »Round and round we go. It all comes down to personal preference. If low carb works for one, its perfectly fine if it doesn't work for someone else. Same with low fat, vegan, paleo, counting calories, intuitive eating and so on.
Would you agree with the first poster than 30% carbs is not real low carb and that low fat is not as good an approach if it happens to work for you? Because it seems to me the first poster is the one who started the "my diet is better than your diet" thing.
I very much agree that different ways of eating will work for different people. The issue is that for many of us it's hard to control calories without a strategy with food so available and without a lifestyle that is necessarily active. How to address this is different for different people.
I'm currently running a few experiments to try and see what I think works best for me, since I find maintenance kind of challenging in that it's easy to get complacent.
30% carbs - it depends on who you ask. The standard low carb dieter would find that high but when I was given a "low" carb diet by 2 different dietitians (fully accredited, not nutritionists) 30% was considered low.
Well, what the "standard low carb dieter" would think depends on whom you include as a low carb dieter, no?
I ask, because my understanding is that the low carb group here is for under 150 g, and ketomom told me (and has posted a number of times) that under 150 g is considered low carb. I initially argued for a lower number, but conceded in that under 150 g is below the usual carb range given (as in the Dietary Guidelines), is certainly below the more usual percentage for macros in Europe/the US (and also many more traditional diets, but those are quite varied). For me, at a deficit (1500), 30% would be 112 g.
If people are told that eating 30% is low carb (as I was, when I was just eating that way because that's how I like to eat, and without trying to cut carbs at all), then it seems wrong to insist it's not REALLY low carb, doesn't count.I personally don't care for a low fat diet but I know people who have a hard time eating a higher percentage. I know people who can't tolerate meat and people who can't tolerate a lot of fiber. They all have the ability to lose weight based on what they can work with because, as is often said around here, it comes down to calories. Different paths to the same destination so to speak. As far as who started it, this is, in my honest opinion, just another version of "my diet is better than your diet" that is beaten to death around here, however entertaining it is.
I agree with you.
My point is that this thread is the opposite of anyone slamming a low carb diet. It's OP complaining because some study didn't conclude that low carb was inherently superior.0 -
I'm not really sure why the OP is calling that article junk science! Consistently eating high quality nutritious foods that keep you satisfied sounds like a solid plan to me, regardless of the amount of carbs or fat.
I agree with the poster above that the OP just doesn't want to hear that LCHF is not any better than any other diet.6 -
It's a shame that they go with macros when dealing with lchf. LCHF is usually considered to be around the minimum glucose needs (for someone eating a typical carby diet) - about 130 g per day, give or take a couple of dozen grams. Most ranges are between 100-150g of carbs as the upper limit.
In someone eating 2600 kcals per day, 130 g of carbs is about 20% of your diet. Someone eating a 1300 kcal diet would have that as 40%. 30% carbs for both people would be almost 200g of carbs and just under 100g.
0 -
It's a shame that they go with macros when dealing with lchf. LCHF is usually considered to be around the minimum glucose needs (for someone eating a typical carby diet) - about 130 g per day, give or take a couple of dozen grams. Most ranges are between 100-150g of carbs as the upper limit.
In someone eating 2600 kcals per day, 130 g of carbs is about 20% of your diet. Someone eating a 1300 kcal diet would have that as 40%. 30% carbs for both people would be almost 200g of carbs and just under 100g.
Mine are 130g daily on a cut (1580 cals); this is a decent amount of carbs to be honest. I hate how carbs are demonized by people claiming "most americans eat 400g a day, they're the devil.. bla bla bla" The truth is if you're getting adequate protein and fats AND eating appropriate to your activity level, it's really hard to over eat carbs/sugar.2 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »It's a shame that they go with macros when dealing with lchf. LCHF is usually considered to be around the minimum glucose needs (for someone eating a typical carby diet) - about 130 g per day, give or take a couple of dozen grams. Most ranges are between 100-150g of carbs as the upper limit.
In someone eating 2600 kcals per day, 130 g of carbs is about 20% of your diet. Someone eating a 1300 kcal diet would have that as 40%. 30% carbs for both people would be almost 200g of carbs and just under 100g.
Mine are 130g daily on a cut (1580 cals); this is a decent amount of carbs to be honest. I hate how carbs are demonized by people claiming "most americans eat 400g a day, they're the devil.. bla bla bla" The truth is if you're getting adequate protein and fats AND eating appropriate to your activity level, it's really hard to over eat carbs/sugar.
Agreed. I do around 1500 on a cut, and aim for at least 100 g of protein (and often go over), and just enjoy fat, so that leaves room for about 150 g of carbs without even thinking about it, and I often eat less just out of personal preference. I found it basically impossible to get to 50 g carbs (total, I was well under with net carbs), but that's because of vegetables, nuts, and a little dairy. Now I'm around 100, because of fruit. I like eating this way, for the most part, but the idea that lower is always healthier with carbs is weird. It's inconsistent with how lots of traditional, very healthy diets are structured. Evidence there IS that macros probably aren't that important in and of themselves, as humans are good on a huge variety of them.2 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.3 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.
would be great if bmi was abolished and a bf% determined whether or not you were overweight0 -
mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.
would be great if bmi was abolished and a bf% determined whether or not you were overweight
Harder to do as a population analytic since you can't determine it accurately on a large scale of people with a simple survey.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.
The entire argument is irrelevant, as the focus should be on health, not weight, for the majority of the population. Categorizing strictly by weight isn't useful in any practical way. On the margins (very over/under weight) you can make generalizations about levels of health, but for the vast majority there's too much nuance.7 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.
The entire argument is irrelevant, as the focus should be on health, not weight, for the majority of the population. Categorizing strictly by weight isn't useful in any practical way. On the margins (very over/under weight) you can make generalizations about levels of health, but for the vast majority there's too much nuance.
Increased bodyfat is directly linked as a risk factor for many health issues. Weight and health go hand in hand.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.
The entire argument is irrelevant, as the focus should be on health, not weight, for the majority of the population. Categorizing strictly by weight isn't useful in any practical way. On the margins (very over/under weight) you can make generalizations about levels of health, but for the vast majority there's too much nuance.
Increased bodyfat is directly linked as a risk factor for many health issues. Weight and health go hand in hand.
Only with the assumption that weight and body fat are directly and inextricably linked. Plenty of "normal" weight people walking around with high body fat.
Better to be in a normal range, but it's no guarantee of health.3 -
accidentalpancake wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.
The entire argument is irrelevant, as the focus should be on health, not weight, for the majority of the population. Categorizing strictly by weight isn't useful in any practical way. On the margins (very over/under weight) you can make generalizations about levels of health, but for the vast majority there's too much nuance.
Increased bodyfat is directly linked as a risk factor for many health issues. Weight and health go hand in hand.
Only with the assumption that weight and body fat are directly and inextricably linked. Plenty of "normal" weight people walking around with high body fat.
Better to be in a normal range, but it's no guarantee of health.
Yeah that's called statistical distribution. The vast majority of people with too much fat are overweight.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »accidentalpancake wrote: »
Nothing to do with people eating too much and moving too little then?I have nothing against low fat (other than it's probably responsible for the obesity epidemic sweeping the world).
And not to minimize the issue, but the "epidemic" was created overnight by adopting WHO standards against the advice of the medical community...
Unclear as to what you mean. Expand please?
The BMI guidelines that the U.S. adopted in the late 1990s were derived from WHO standards, which instantly reclassified tens of millions of Americans as overweight/obese.
And as research shows, that seems to be still lenient as there's way more people at "normal weight" BMI who have elevated amounts of bodyfat than there are "overweight" BMI people who don't. So for all intents and purposes, the amount of Americans who should count overweight/obese should be even HIGHER.
would be great if bmi was abolished and a bf% determined whether or not you were overweight
Harder to do as a population analytic since you can't determine it accurately on a large scale of people with a simple survey.
True. I was picturing this going down at the doctor's office.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »What's responsible for the obesity epidemic is eating far too much for our mostly sedentary lives; not a particular macronutrient or lack thereof.
Yes.
Correct, but it's also the cheap availability of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods. The marketing of "low-fat" products as a healthier alternative (lies) and the crap we force feed American students day-in day-out that promote a lifetime of poor behavior...
Saying y'all are right, but that doesn't mean there aren't other factors at play here exacerbating the problem.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mrsnattybulking wrote: »What's responsible for the obesity epidemic is eating far too much for our mostly sedentary lives; not a particular macronutrient or lack thereof.
Yes.
Correct, but it's also the cheap availability of calorie-dense, nutrient-poor foods.
It's that people consume those foods in excessive amounts, yes, and that we do so when having largely sedentary lifestyles (I don't do either, "we" in the general sense).
Essentially, it's that we live in an era/place where movement is not really required much, and food is extremely available (availability relates to access, ease, low cost, and a lack of custom that might create artificial restrictions to consumption). It's not the specific types of foods being available -- there have always been such foods available, at least to some portion of the population and at least during recorded history.The marketing of "low-fat" products as a healthier alternative (lies) and the crap we force feed American students day-in day-out that promote a lifetime of poor behavior...
This I don't agree with.
"People think low fat = healthy" is really overplayed and basically false by now. People think low fat will be marginally better than not (and it often does have lower cals, really depends on the product) and use that as an excuse to eat more, maybe, but they know better. People eat something like Halo Top because they want to eat MORE or want to eat a serving for only 80 cal or whatever, not because they think it's magically super good for them. And in reality, if the choice is a whole pint of Halo Top vs. a pint of B&J (neither which I'd recommend as a great idea to do daily, but I'd think the Halo Top would be less of a problem, yeah), they might be right.
Anyway, I don't agree (based on both what I recall as a kid and looking at school provided lunch options here -- and no one is required to choose the school provided lunch -- that the issue is that schools "force feed" terrible lunches/breakfasts, that's really missing the boat IMO on both what the reality is and where the responsibility lies (I think kids that just ate the school foods and a nutritious dinner would be fine, it's extra stuff that is leading to obesity). Nor do I think it's that lower nutrient options are available for purchase. That was the case when I was a kid too, and well before.Saying y'all are right, but that doesn't mean there aren't other factors at play here exacerbating the problem.
The point is that it has nothing to do with the macro mix that is on average eaten in the US.
Humans are fine with a huge variety of macros, and different societies have had different ones, and both healthy and normal weight and societies where obesity is common have a range of them. The US is not out of the norm with its carb percentage or even its fat percentage (maybe the protein percentage, according to some, but I doubt that's the issue either). The so called SAD (which is not what I ate growing up in the US or now, so I think it's a bit overstated) is bad not because it's high carb, as some claim -- it's not and that's a lazy uninformed way of thinking about it -- but because the sources of both carbs and fat (and related to fat, protein) are on average lower nutrient ones that tend not to be all that filling, arguably. Equating all sources of carbs or all sources of fat nutritionally makes little sense to me.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »This I don't agree with.
"People think low fat = healthy" is really overplayed and basically false by now. People think low fat will be marginally better than not (and it often does have lower cals, really depends on the product) and use that as an excuse to eat more, maybe, but they know better. People eat something like Halo Top because they want to eat MORE or want to eat a serving for only 80 cal or whatever, not because they think it's magically super good for them. And in reality, if the choice is a whole pint of Halo Top vs. a pint of B&J (neither which I'd recommend as a great idea to do daily, but I'd think the Halo Top would be less of a problem, yeah), they might be right.
Anyway, I don't agree (based on both what I recall as a kid and looking at school provided lunch options here -- and no one is required to choose the school provided lunch -- that the issue is that schools "force feed" terrible lunches/breakfasts, that's really missing the boat IMO on both what the reality is and where the responsibility lies (I think kids that just ate the school foods and a nutritious dinner would be fine, it's extra stuff that is leading to obesity). Nor do I think it's that lower nutrient options are available for purchase. That was the case when I was a kid too, and well before.
Completely disagree. I taught English in Japan for two years, and students were required to eat a protein, vegetable side, small bowl of a rice, and a glass a milk. Every day. Not a lot of rampant obesity among Japanese school children, is there? Why? That's a great balance of macronutrients, it's portioned, and balanced out with a lot more daily exercise and similarly portioned and balanced meals at home.
It makes a big difference:
My wife teaches in the schools now. When she taught in rural Ohio, many of the kids HAD to eat the school lunch (and breakfast) because they weren't getting the right foods at home. I saw weekend lunch schedules that Monday hot dogs, Tuesday pizza, Wednesday corn dogs, burger and fries, etc. etc. etc. etc. and so on.
Pure. Garbage.
That kind of meal -- a greasy pizza, fries, processed desserts -- should be a very occasional treat, not a cheap daily staple. We're poisoning our kids.
Kids perform better in all ways when we feed them right. And it IS our responsibility.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-easiest-way-to-improve-test-scores-that-has-nothing-to-do-with-studying_us_596cd50fe4b0174186295cd0?zw
6 -
Also @lemurcat12 saying I "completely disagree" with you is actually too strong. I agree that the problem isn't "carbs" and reject fanaticism on either side. It's about CICO -- but calorie-dense options and food deserts make it all the more difficult in America. People telling kids to "move more and eat less" when they actually do need better food choices is unfair, and there are countries doing this right that we can look to.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »This I don't agree with.
"People think low fat = healthy" is really overplayed and basically false by now. People think low fat will be marginally better than not (and it often does have lower cals, really depends on the product) and use that as an excuse to eat more, maybe, but they know better. People eat something like Halo Top because they want to eat MORE or want to eat a serving for only 80 cal or whatever, not because they think it's magically super good for them. And in reality, if the choice is a whole pint of Halo Top vs. a pint of B&J (neither which I'd recommend as a great idea to do daily, but I'd think the Halo Top would be less of a problem, yeah), they might be right.
Anyway, I don't agree (based on both what I recall as a kid and looking at school provided lunch options here -- and no one is required to choose the school provided lunch -- that the issue is that schools "force feed" terrible lunches/breakfasts, that's really missing the boat IMO on both what the reality is and where the responsibility lies (I think kids that just ate the school foods and a nutritious dinner would be fine, it's extra stuff that is leading to obesity). Nor do I think it's that lower nutrient options are available for purchase. That was the case when I was a kid too, and well before.
Completely disagree. I taught English in Japan for two years, and students were required to eat a protein, vegetable side, small bowl of a rice, and a glass a milk. Every day. Not a lot of rampant obesity among Japanese school children, is there? Why? That's a great balance of macronutrients, it's portioned, and balanced out with a lot more daily exercise and similarly portioned and balanced meals at home.
It makes a big difference
I don't disagree that teaching kids about sensible food choices is helpful. I do think there are huge differences between US and Japanese culture and what is done in Japan to prevent obesity (including social stigma) that make any changes to the US school lunch program rather irrelevant, and I also think that it would be IMPOSSIBLE (even if desirable, and I don't think that level of gov't involvement IS desirable) to REQUIRE kids to eat a particular lunch, even if that were true (not saying it's not, I don't know).
That said, I know what school lunches are where I live (in a school system where the majority of kids in it are lower income, so free school lunch and breakfast are more important than many places) and although they are framed to be kid friendly, they do involve protein, whole grains, vegetables, fruit, so on. I think people generalize about US lunches based on the worst possible examples which are not accurate everywhere, or probably even most places.
I will add that I grew up eating healthfully (not super duper "mom was a health food nut" healthfully, but with the idea that a meal is protein, vegetables, a healthy starch (whole grains or a whole food option like a potato or corn or whatever). I also grew up with the understanding that kids should go run around outside. That that's not the case in some places now is a more complicated problem than "it's the school lunches" -- frankly, I think the lunches were a lot worse when I was a kid (although different place, hard to compare) than now (although I always brought my own since I was kind of picky).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions