how much carbs is too much carbs? - dietary help
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »In regards to what macros are satiating, that is entirely individual, so blanket statments about what's filling and what's not don't hold universally true.
In an attempt to rid myself of the last 5 vanity pounds, I started low carbing.
That was a BIG mistake.
It left me hungry, full of cravings, and led to a cycle of binge/restrict that I stayed in for far too long until I figured out that my macros were the problem.
I ended up ultimately gaining weight.
For me personally, I need starchy carbs like whole grains and tubers and beans in my diet in order to feel satiated. Fat and protein alone don't do a thing for me.
this is how i felt the first couple of times i tried to eat low carb. that problem was fixed for me when I added more fat into my diet. everybody's body is different tho, carbs are the devil for some (like me) while they play nice with others (like you)
consider yourself lucky that carbs are kind to your waistline and if you ever do low carb again, try high fat and see how it works for you and if it makes you feel better
I have familial hypercholesterolemia. A higher fat intake is contraindicated for that.
Editing to add:
Before this go-round with weight loss, I low carbed for ten years, and that was before I had a cholesterol problem.
I had a high fat intake then, but low carbing never did do the trick of naturally satiating me the way it was supposed to. I did lose weight, but only to a point. The lowest I ever got was 150, and that was still overweight (I'm 5'1").
Fat is not satiating for everyone, it's apparently not for me. I need a certain amount to feel satisfied (anything less than 40 grams leaves me a bit crave-y), but more than that is just wasting calories better spent on carbs if they're not being spent on protein.
I can eat a half a jar of peanut butter with a spoon, and only stop because I finally realize how much I hoovered down. I can eat an entire block of cheese mindlessly. Just doesn't fill me up. But give me 350 cals of rice and beans in tomato sauce and I'm good for the afternoon. Or potatoes - roasted or baked they always fill me up!3 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Yes, your 2nd bolded part is not accurate. Protein also triggers an insulin response. That is what anvil is saying.
Except that protein isn't one of the three molecules.
Are you all just trolling me? This can't be for real.
You're talking in circles. If you're narrowly defining your three molecules and then citing that one of them causes glucose overload leading to insulin spikes and fat storage, it's only right that someone else can point out another molecule that you didn't mention another molecule that also causes insulin spikes.
You're leaving out important information.
No one is trolling you, you're just not painting a complete picture.
I'm not actually trying to paint a picture, though.
I'm not defending this person's claim. I've already said I don't think the claim is accurate.
Let me remind you what my point is here. I'm explaining why calling the things he said, "not accurate in any way" isn't reasonable and is negative.
It's not accurate in any way.
The person is eating in a calorie deficit.
Net fat storage in a calorie deficit doesn't happen.
The teachings of low carb gurus about "fat storing mode" triggered by insulin response are alarmist nonsense. Fat storage/usage is a normal part of the energy cycle we all go through daily and the net result of it depends entirely on energy balance, not substrate balance like they'd like you to think.
Unless you think carbs don't trigger insulin or that insulin doesn't trigger fat storage, it's accurate in some ways.
No, it's incredibly misleading, and therefore not accurate even if bits of it would be if taken out of context.
Here are the claims again:Unless you are an athlete or fitness enthusiast, your carbs are very high.
Reality: we don't know this. The logging was missing macros and it's one day that the OP said was "a bad day."
Also, many people do fine with a huge range of carbs, including as high as 80%. While that wouldn't be my recommendation, especially on a deficit, OP's protein (which would be my main concern) is above the RDA.Calories in and out is important, but it's not everything. When your body consumes an excess amount of carbs, your glycogen tank is overflowing and triggering a spike in insulin. When you secrete too much insulin, your body goes into fat storing mode.
Reality: we have reason to believe that OP is and will be in a deficit. Yet the poster suggests that she will be "in fat storing mode" which would only be relevant if the poster were trying to claim -- inaccurately -- that the OP would be gaining fat even in a deficit. That is simply not true, there would be no net gain of fat.
Beyond this, "excess amount of carbs" is meaningless -- excess of what, given OP is getting the RDA of protein, adequate fat, and is in a calorie deficit?
And why would the "glycogen tank" be "overflowing" if OP is at a deficit. Not likely.
Also, let's assume, arguendo, that there is storage and then burning of fat. Quite unlikely in this context, since it's not efficient, but what harm would that be? There would likely be some excess calories used for the metabolic process of adding and then burning fat (which is why it's inefficient).My advice, increase your fat and protein intake and lower your carbs.
Not everyone needs to do this. It's one-size fits all advice.
OP might find lower carbs and higher protein and fat is beneficial (I'd generally want to know how she feels, why she eats what she eats, what her actual diet is -- the one day doesn't tell us much -- before giving any opinions). But to assert with only what we know that she should lower carbs is not supported by anything but the suggestion that she will gain fat in a deficit if she does not.
And that is what is inaccurate and misleading.
This is the kind of misleading claim that needs to be corrected.
It's behind claims that one MUST be low carb to lose, which is just not true at all. I think cutting carbs can be a good idea (so can cutting fat), and I tend to prefer lower carb personally, but suggesting that you magically gain fat on a deficit if you eat too many carbs is wrong. And that's clearly what the poster was communicating.11 -
BabyBear76 wrote: »Looking at your log. That looks like way too many carbs as there is little room for vegetables and healthy protiens.
OP said it's a non typical day, because of the lack of vegetables.
I'd agree vegetables are important.
Vegetables ARE largely carbs.
We have one poster pushing under 20 g of carbs, and another saying that you need to cut carbs to fit in vegetables. Puzzling. This morning I had 44 g of carbs -- 1 g from shrimp, 8 from some black soy beans (they had protein too, but clearly are evil), and the rest -- 35 g -- from vegetables.
Another 20 g from vegetables at lunch.
That's 55 g from vegetables, before dinner.
Another 19 g from some quinoa and the beans, plus a little from miscellaneous stuff.
And that's despite failing to bring lunch and being forced to buy it!4 -
Just to point out, carbs are not an essential macronutrient. Your body can create glucose by converting fats/proteins through glucenogenesis. Carbs can make a body run optimally though, increase exercise recovery, protect muscle, etc....
I was corrected for writing that carbs are an essential nutrient and told I'm wrong.
My statement that carbs are an essential nutrient came from the textbook from a recent university course I took on fitness. The textbook is Fit & Well: Core Concepts and Labs in Physical Fitness and Wellness, pub. by McGraw Hill Education.
The intro in Chap. 8, pg 226 says that carbohydrates are one of the 6 classes of essential nutrients, along with proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins, and water.
It describes carbohydrates as a macronutrient along with proteins, fats, and water. The textbook describes micronutrients as vitamins and minerals. The carbohydrate function summary in Table 8.1., pg 226 says that carbohydrates supply energy to the brain, nervous system, and blood, and energy to muscles during exercise.
1 -
Just to point out, carbs are not an essential macronutrient. Your body can create glucose by converting fats/proteins through glucenogenesis. Carbs can make a body run optimally though, increase exercise recovery, protect muscle, etc....
I was corrected for writing that carbs are an essential nutrient and told I'm wrong.
My statement that carbs are an essential nutrient came from the textbook from a recent university course I took on fitness. The textbook is Fit & Well: Core Concepts and Labs in Physical Fitness and Wellness, pub. by McGraw Hill Education.
The intro in Chap. 8, pg 226 says that carbohydrates are one of the 6 classes of essential nutrients, along with proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins, and water.
It describes carbohydrates as a macronutrient along with proteins, fats, and water. The textbook describes micronutrients as vitamins and minerals. The carbohydrate function summary in Table 8.1., pg 226 says that carbohydrates supply energy to the brain, nervous system, and blood, and energy to muscles during exercise.
Dietary carbs aren't essential. Your body can convert other things if required to supply glucose for energy production.4 -
Just to point out, carbs are not an essential macronutrient. Your body can create glucose by converting fats/proteins through glucenogenesis. Carbs can make a body run optimally though, increase exercise recovery, protect muscle, etc....
I was corrected for writing that carbs are an essential nutrient and told I'm wrong.
My statement that carbs are an essential nutrient came from the textbook from a recent university course I took on fitness. The textbook is Fit & Well: Core Concepts and Labs in Physical Fitness and Wellness, pub. by McGraw Hill Education.
The intro in Chap. 8, pg 226 says that carbohydrates are one of the 6 classes of essential nutrients, along with proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins, and water.
It describes carbohydrates as a macronutrient along with proteins, fats, and water. The textbook describes micronutrients as vitamins and minerals. The carbohydrate function summary in Table 8.1., pg 226 says that carbohydrates supply energy to the brain, nervous system, and blood, and energy to muscles during exercise.
Essential means your body cannot produce it and needs to be obtained from other sources. It cant produce certain fatty acids and amino acids.
On the contrary, you can produce glucose. If you look at the research, you wont find a minimum for carbs. A body cant alpha lipoic acids and about 9 of the 20 amino acids. Those have to come from food.
Eta: glucose is essential to the body, but our bodies can create it.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My4happykids wrote: »@VintageFeline starchy carbs (sweet potato, winter squash, potatoes, brown rice, whole grains, and beans) what I assume you mean by what you said are different then refined carbs (white bread, white rice, and the"value added products") which is what I said. Without going off the refined products there is no way to know if you are having a problem that you just thought was "normal"
Are you serious that someone can't be relied upon to know their own digestive system?
Now I've seen everything in the realm of true belief.
Actually it's very common not to know your own digestive system. Full fledged type 2 diabetes is not always something that is diagnosed until the person has had it for years. When it is diagnosed, often times the first symptoms are not something which seems connected to carbs - such as bad vision.0 -
rheddmobile wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »My4happykids wrote: »@VintageFeline starchy carbs (sweet potato, winter squash, potatoes, brown rice, whole grains, and beans) what I assume you mean by what you said are different then refined carbs (white bread, white rice, and the"value added products") which is what I said. Without going off the refined products there is no way to know if you are having a problem that you just thought was "normal"
Are you serious that someone can't be relied upon to know their own digestive system?
Now I've seen everything in the realm of true belief.
Actually it's very common not to know your own digestive system. Full fledged type 2 diabetes is not always something that is diagnosed until the person has had it for years.
Just to point out, white rice is a staple in the healthiest and longest living cultures. But they also eat half the calories and are active. The latter is the bigger issue.8 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Now everyone wants to get back on topic? Haha nice guys. Basic physiology
https://examine.com/nutrition/how-are-carbohydrates-converted-into-fat-deposits/
Basic physiology.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
It doesn't happen outside of fringe cases.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Why is everyone so negative here? Most of us are not registered dietitians and all of the information we choose to believe is done through personal research. I never claimed to know everything, I posted on my experience and what I know works for me. If whatever you're doing works for you, then keep doing it! Don't change it. But if someone asks for advice, all I can do is speak through my experience. What you believe is your prerogative but the way to influence others is not to put them down.
While I do disagree with many of you, you also don't see me on here slamming each one of you for research papers to back up your claims.
You all got your information from one source or another and repetition is powerful. The point of my first post was to let others know there are other options to explore, not that I am right.
Hope that clears some things up, I never meant to ruffle any feathers here.
Here's the thing (from my point of view): advice from the point of view of your experience is very different than categorical claims of fact (like the ones you have made above).
"Here's how a keto diet helped me . . . " versus "No, you can't lose weight if you're eating too many carbohydrates . . . " . . . do you see the difference between those two?
I, for example, have experience losing weight as a vegan eating a diet that is higher in carbohydrates. If someone is interested, I'm always happy to share my experiences. But I would never translate my success into thinking that everyone has to lose weight as a vegan eating higher carbohydrate or that it's somehow superior to other eating patterns that result in weight loss.
All I recommended was lowering carbs and increasing fats and proteins. I did not once say you can ONLY lose weight restricting carbohydrates. I apologize if it came off that way but it wasn't my intention. better be careful to post my experience here because if the belief isn't popular and widely accepted, it's bound to get backlash.
You didn't get backlash over an unpopular belief. You got backlash specifically over the claim of "glycogen overflow, insulin spike, fat storage". It is just not accurate in any way and has no scientific basis. People do that kind of thing here all the time and those less well read, might buy into it.
Post your personal experience all you want. If you are going to make claims about physiology, or other scientific claims, they will be challenged if not accurate. That is reasonable and it doesn't make anyone negative. It makes them accurate and interested in truth. Take it as a healthy, if uncomfortable, learning experience.
So then what happens when glycogen stores are filled and excess glucose is in your blood? Insulin rises. And then fat is stored... it's not inaccurate
And people don't care about this outside of the context of net fat storage, which is entirely dependent on energy balance, and has nothing to do with any of this. You're muddying the waters.
No I am defending the person who has been attacked for putting up "inaccurate information" when it wasn't
Oh also, what she said wasn't "if you eat carbs your insulin rises and it gets stored to be used later, if you're in a deficit you won't store more than you use."
It was "If you eat too many carbs your glycogen stores overflow your insulin rises and you go into fat storing mode"5 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »Protein became relevant when you stated that glucose was the only thing that triggers an insulin response, which is clearly incorrect.
NO. That is not what I wrote. This is what I wrote:
Your body uses three types of molecules for fuel: glucose, alcohol, and ketones. Right? Your body uses them in that order.
The glucose in your blood is used for immediate energy and it is stored in your muscle as glycogen. So, if your glycogen stores are full any glucose in your blood not used immediately as energy is in excess. I think that's what this person meant by "glycogen overflow".
Glucose also happens to be the only of the three molecules to trigger an insulin response by which I mean it causes your pancreas to release the enzyme insulin
Your premise was already wrong.3 -
Just to point out, carbs are not an essential macronutrient. Your body can create glucose by converting fats/proteins through glucenogenesis. Carbs can make a body run optimally though, increase exercise recovery, protect muscle, etc....
I was corrected for writing that carbs are an essential nutrient and told I'm wrong.
My statement that carbs are an essential nutrient came from the textbook from a recent university course I took on fitness. The textbook is Fit & Well: Core Concepts and Labs in Physical Fitness and Wellness, pub. by McGraw Hill Education.
The intro in Chap. 8, pg 226 says that carbohydrates are one of the 6 classes of essential nutrients, along with proteins, fats, minerals, vitamins, and water.
It describes carbohydrates as a macronutrient along with proteins, fats, and water. The textbook describes micronutrients as vitamins and minerals. The carbohydrate function summary in Table 8.1., pg 226 says that carbohydrates supply energy to the brain, nervous system, and blood, and energy to muscles during exercise.
Carbs are not an essential nutrient per definition. An essential nutrient is a nutrient your body needs to function but is unable to synthesize. Your body can synthesize glucose. Therefore it is not an essential nutrient. And water is not a macronutrient, or even a nutrient at all. What a weird book.5 -
Well OP, you definitely got a lot of response to your question. lol Most of the posters are right. Carbs don't determine your weight loss. Deficit does. But if you eat mostly carbs, you will be more likely to hate the weight loss journey because you will feel very hungry and won't be able to eat as much volume. The thing I noticed most was when I ate close to a 40%, 30%, 30% balance of Carbs, Protein, and Fat respectively, I felt pretty good. Even at a deficit. If you feel good and energetic at a deficit, you are more like to succeed because you aren't miserable.
Another thing to note is when you lose weight you aren't only losing fat. You are losing muscle. It's good to eat a little more protein than normal while at a deficit. I lift heavy so I eat .8g per pound of body weight, i.e. 125g, but if you don't lift heavy might shoot for .5g per pound of body weight.
I hope all this info hasn't overwhelmed you! It's amazing how many opinions are out there! I just tried to stick with the logical facts as much as possible. To me, balance seems like a good idea. Too much of anything in any area of life seems to be a bad thing. That's just something I have learned with age. I can also tell you that a bad day here and there won't derail you. Dwelling on it might. But if you move on and shoot for a better day tomorrow, and get better at having lots of those days, you'll be just fine.
I would highly suggest lowering your daily intake though if you want to lose 2 pounds a week. Unless maintenance for you is 2500 calories per day. My maintenance is 1700 calories a day. If I ate 1500 calories a day I would lose less than a half a pound per week. Everyone is different but just to give you some perspective. You need a 1000 calorie per day deficit to lose 2 pounds per week. I have no idea what you weigh but, if you are just mildly overweight 2 pounds a week might be overshooting it a bit. I wouldn't drop below 1200 calories per day. You need to eat that much just to get the necessary nutrients your body needs. If you are obese then 2 pounds a week is fine for a while and 2500 might actually be maintenance.1 -
reyoflightphoto wrote: »Well OP, you definitely got a lot of response to your question. lol Most of the posters are right. Carbs don't determine your weight loss. Deficit does. But if you eat mostly carbs, you will be more likely to hate the weight loss journey because you will feel very hungry and won't be able to eat as much volume. The thing I noticed most was when I ate close to a 40%, 30%, 30% balance of Carbs, Protein, and Fat respectively, I felt pretty good. Even at a deficit. If you feel good and energetic at a deficit, you are more like to succeed because you aren't miserable.
Another thing to note is when you lose weight you aren't only losing fat. You are losing muscle. It's good to eat a little more protein than normal while at a deficit. I lift heavy so I eat .8g per pound of body weight, i.e. 125g, but if you don't lift heavy might shoot for .5g per pound of body weight.
I hope all this info hasn't overwhelmed you! It's amazing how many opinions are out there! I just tried to stick with the logical facts as much as possible. To me, balance seems like a good idea. Too much of anything in any area of life seems to be a bad thing. That's just something I have learned with age. I can also tell you that a bad day here and there won't derail you. Dwelling on it might. But if you move on and shoot for a better day tomorrow, and get better at having lots of those days, you'll be just fine.
I would highly suggest lowering your daily intake though if you want to lose 2 pounds a week. Unless maintenance for you is 2500 calories per day. My maintenance is 1700 calories a day. If I ate 1500 calories a day I would lose less than a half a pound per week. Everyone is different but just to give you some perspective. You need a 1000 calorie per day deficit to lose 2 pounds per week. I have no idea what you weigh but, if you are just mildly overweight 2 pounds a week might be overshooting it a bit. I wouldn't drop below 1200 calories per day. You need to eat that much just to get the necessary nutrients your body needs. If you are obese then 2 pounds a week is fine for a while and 2500 might actually be maintenance.
More protein is definitely a good point, but if one is a volume eater, carbs and protein are the go to since they are 4 cal per gram. There is actually a volume eater thread to discusses that.
Its actually been an interesting thread. It seems that those who need volume function better on low to mod fat. And those who dont like volume, do better with more fats and less carbs.4 -
reyoflightphoto wrote: »Well OP, you definitely got a lot of response to your question. lol Most of the posters are right. Carbs don't determine your weight loss. Deficit does. But if you eat mostly carbs, you will be more likely to hate the weight loss journey because you will feel very hungry and won't be able to eat as much volume. The thing I noticed most was when I ate close to a 40%, 30%, 30% balance of Carbs, Protein, and Fat respectively, I felt pretty good. Even at a deficit. If you feel good and energetic at a deficit, you are more like to succeed because you aren't miserable.
Another thing to note is when you lose weight you aren't only losing fat. You are losing muscle. It's good to eat a little more protein than normal while at a deficit. I lift heavy so I eat .8g per pound of body weight, i.e. 125g, but if you don't lift heavy might shoot for .5g per pound of body weight.
I hope all this info hasn't overwhelmed you! It's amazing how many opinions are out there! I just tried to stick with the logical facts as much as possible. To me, balance seems like a good idea. Too much of anything in any area of life seems to be a bad thing. That's just something I have learned with age. I can also tell you that a bad day here and there won't derail you. Dwelling on it might. But if you move on and shoot for a better day tomorrow, and get better at having lots of those days, you'll be just fine.
I would highly suggest lowering your daily intake though if you want to lose 2 pounds a week. Unless maintenance for you is 2500 calories per day. My maintenance is 1700 calories a day. If I ate 1500 calories a day I would lose less than a half a pound per week. Everyone is different but just to give you some perspective. You need a 1000 calorie per day deficit to lose 2 pounds per week. I have no idea what you weigh but, if you are just mildly overweight 2 pounds a week might be overshooting it a bit. I wouldn't drop below 1200 calories per day. You need to eat that much just to get the necessary nutrients your body needs. If you are obese then 2 pounds a week is fine for a while and 2500 might actually be maintenance.
More protein is definitely a good point, but if one is a volume eater, carbs and protein are the go to since they are 4 cal per gram. There is actually a volume eater thread to discusses that.
Its actually been an interesting thread. It seems that those who need volume function better on low to mod fat. And those who dont like volume, do better with more fats and less carbs.
I am a volume eater and always have the most success on lower fat diets.0 -
reyoflightphoto wrote: »Well OP, you definitely got a lot of response to your question. lol Most of the posters are right. Carbs don't determine your weight loss. Deficit does. But if you eat mostly carbs, you will be more likely to hate the weight loss journey because you will feel very hungry and won't be able to eat as much volume. The thing I noticed most was when I ate close to a 40%, 30%, 30% balance of Carbs, Protein, and Fat respectively, I felt pretty good. Even at a deficit. If you feel good and energetic at a deficit, you are more like to succeed because you aren't miserable.
Another thing to note is when you lose weight you aren't only losing fat. You are losing muscle. It's good to eat a little more protein than normal while at a deficit. I lift heavy so I eat .8g per pound of body weight, i.e. 125g, but if you don't lift heavy might shoot for .5g per pound of body weight.
I hope all this info hasn't overwhelmed you! It's amazing how many opinions are out there! I just tried to stick with the logical facts as much as possible. To me, balance seems like a good idea. Too much of anything in any area of life seems to be a bad thing. That's just something I have learned with age. I can also tell you that a bad day here and there won't derail you. Dwelling on it might. But if you move on and shoot for a better day tomorrow, and get better at having lots of those days, you'll be just fine.
I would highly suggest lowering your daily intake though if you want to lose 2 pounds a week. Unless maintenance for you is 2500 calories per day. My maintenance is 1700 calories a day. If I ate 1500 calories a day I would lose less than a half a pound per week. Everyone is different but just to give you some perspective. You need a 1000 calorie per day deficit to lose 2 pounds per week. I have no idea what you weigh but, if you are just mildly overweight 2 pounds a week might be overshooting it a bit. I wouldn't drop below 1200 calories per day. You need to eat that much just to get the necessary nutrients your body needs. If you are obese then 2 pounds a week is fine for a while and 2500 might actually be maintenance.
More protein is definitely a good point, but if one is a volume eater, carbs and protein are the go to since they are 4 cal per gram. There is actually a volume eater thread to discusses that.
Its actually been an interesting thread. It seems that those who need volume function better on low to mod fat. And those who dont like volume, do better with more fats and less carbs.
I'm a participant in that thread. There's a subset of us in there who particularly need a bit of starchy carbs with our volume in order to feel satiated.
Just pointing this out to once again demonstrate that satiety is entirely individual. I suspect that some of this has to do with insulin sensitivity to some point, some of it has to do with activity levels (which in turn are likely affecting insulin sensitivity), and some of it is up to some other factors that I know absolutely nothing about.
I do grow very, very tired of the blanket assertions that only one macro balance is universally the most satiating, and know I'm not alone in not finding the combination of protein/fat to be the be all and end all of filling macro mixes.
I famously remember a poster (haven't seen her in a while) saying her satiating macro mix was fat and carbs.
The more I read on these things, the less I know.3 -
When you get 7 pages of arguing and answering , you need to realize that it's 100% personal preference. I did keto for 3 months and hated everyday, my life was misery I couldn't join any friends party or a night out. I realized this is not life and this isn't for me. I can fit that 160 calorie beer on my diary and now and I won't eat that fruit on the evening. It's personal preference. I was losing the same amount of weight with keto and with normal diet. Personal preference2
-
When you get 7 pages of arguing and answering , you need to realize that it's 100% personal preference. I did keto for 3 months and hated everyday, my life was misery I couldn't join any friends party or a night out. I realized this is not life and this isn't for me. I can fit that 160 calorie beer on my diary and now and I won't eat that fruit on the evening. It's personal preference. I was losing the same amount of weight with keto and with normal diet. Personal preference
Well that's really all it comes down to, and it's more than preference to a point, it's about what makes compliance easier.
The people who love keto/low carbing love it because it naturally satiates them and regulates their appetite and cravings and makes it easier to stick to a calorie deficit. I have no issue with the adherents of those diets who advocate this approach and say this is why they are for it.
Where I do have an issue is with misinformation and bad science about how and why digestion and low carbing works.
4 -
WatchJoshLift wrote: »reyoflightphoto wrote: »Well OP, you definitely got a lot of response to your question. lol Most of the posters are right. Carbs don't determine your weight loss. Deficit does. But if you eat mostly carbs, you will be more likely to hate the weight loss journey because you will feel very hungry and won't be able to eat as much volume. The thing I noticed most was when I ate close to a 40%, 30%, 30% balance of Carbs, Protein, and Fat respectively, I felt pretty good. Even at a deficit. If you feel good and energetic at a deficit, you are more like to succeed because you aren't miserable.
Another thing to note is when you lose weight you aren't only losing fat. You are losing muscle. It's good to eat a little more protein than normal while at a deficit. I lift heavy so I eat .8g per pound of body weight, i.e. 125g, but if you don't lift heavy might shoot for .5g per pound of body weight.
I hope all this info hasn't overwhelmed you! It's amazing how many opinions are out there! I just tried to stick with the logical facts as much as possible. To me, balance seems like a good idea. Too much of anything in any area of life seems to be a bad thing. That's just something I have learned with age. I can also tell you that a bad day here and there won't derail you. Dwelling on it might. But if you move on and shoot for a better day tomorrow, and get better at having lots of those days, you'll be just fine.
I would highly suggest lowering your daily intake though if you want to lose 2 pounds a week. Unless maintenance for you is 2500 calories per day. My maintenance is 1700 calories a day. If I ate 1500 calories a day I would lose less than a half a pound per week. Everyone is different but just to give you some perspective. You need a 1000 calorie per day deficit to lose 2 pounds per week. I have no idea what you weigh but, if you are just mildly overweight 2 pounds a week might be overshooting it a bit. I wouldn't drop below 1200 calories per day. You need to eat that much just to get the necessary nutrients your body needs. If you are obese then 2 pounds a week is fine for a while and 2500 might actually be maintenance.
More protein is definitely a good point, but if one is a volume eater, carbs and protein are the go to since they are 4 cal per gram. There is actually a volume eater thread to discusses that.
Its actually been an interesting thread. It seems that those who need volume function better on low to mod fat. And those who dont like volume, do better with more fats and less carbs.
I am a volume eater and always have the most success on lower fat diets.
Its the first thing i cut.. protein and starches are my go to's.2 -
I find the Volume Eaters thread really interesting and would recommend checking it out, although in the past few months I've come to accept that I'm not really a volume eater, more of a mix.
I don't at all agree with those who say carbs cannot be satiating, though. The easiest time I had cutting calories (completely accidently) was when I tried to do a more traditional Lent that was vegan, very whole foods based and low fat. I was not intending to diet at all, but always felt plenty full and lost a bunch of weight -- I think I was eating around 1200 without trying. It was lots of veg, but also beans, potatoes and sweet potatoes and various grains. I don't think it would work for me overall (the religious element is what kept me from being seriously tempted by meat or cheese or the like and I've struggled, although not with hunger, when trying to eat that way at other times, although I enjoyed it that Lent). So I laugh when people insist that carbs cannot be filling.1 -
This is the key thing. And the keto eaters seem to be particularly prone to this. In the last few days we have seen the misleading info in this thread and a couple of others where folks insisted that carbs/ glucose had to be depleted before fat burning began in complete opposition to how fuel substrates actually get used.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »When you get 7 pages of arguing and answering , you need to realize that it's 100% personal preference. I did keto for 3 months and hated everyday, my life was misery I couldn't join any friends party or a night out. I realized this is not life and this isn't for me. I can fit that 160 calorie beer on my diary and now and I won't eat that fruit on the evening. It's personal preference. I was losing the same amount of weight with keto and with normal diet. Personal preference
Well that's really all it comes down to, and it's more than preference to a point, it's about what makes compliance easier.
The people who love keto/low carbing love it because it naturally satiates them and regulates their appetite and cravings and makes it easier to stick to a calorie deficit. I have no issue with the adherents of those diets who advocate this approach and say this is why they are for it.
Where I do have an issue is with misinformation and bad science about how and why digestion and low carbing works.
If you want to eat keto, go right ahead. It is a valid choice, particularly if you have health conditions for which it can be beneficial. It doesn't have to be promoted as having benefits it doesn't possess. It stand just fine on it's own.
6 -
reyoflightphoto wrote: »Well OP, you definitely got a lot of response to your question. lol Most of the posters are right. Carbs don't determine your weight loss. Deficit does. But if you eat mostly carbs, you will be more likely to hate the weight loss journey because you will feel very hungry and won't be able to eat as much volume. The thing I noticed most was when I ate close to a 40%, 30%, 30% balance of Carbs, Protein, and Fat respectively, I felt pretty good. Even at a deficit. If you feel good and energetic at a deficit, you are more like to succeed because you aren't miserable.
Another thing to note is when you lose weight you aren't only losing fat. You are losing muscle. It's good to eat a little more protein than normal while at a deficit. I lift heavy so I eat .8g per pound of body weight, i.e. 125g, but if you don't lift heavy might shoot for .5g per pound of body weight.
I hope all this info hasn't overwhelmed you! It's amazing how many opinions are out there! I just tried to stick with the logical facts as much as possible. To me, balance seems like a good idea. Too much of anything in any area of life seems to be a bad thing. That's just something I have learned with age. I can also tell you that a bad day here and there won't derail you. Dwelling on it might. But if you move on and shoot for a better day tomorrow, and get better at having lots of those days, you'll be just fine.
I would highly suggest lowering your daily intake though if you want to lose 2 pounds a week. Unless maintenance for you is 2500 calories per day. My maintenance is 1700 calories a day. If I ate 1500 calories a day I would lose less than a half a pound per week. Everyone is different but just to give you some perspective. You need a 1000 calorie per day deficit to lose 2 pounds per week. I have no idea what you weigh but, if you are just mildly overweight 2 pounds a week might be overshooting it a bit. I wouldn't drop below 1200 calories per day. You need to eat that much just to get the necessary nutrients your body needs. If you are obese then 2 pounds a week is fine for a while and 2500 might actually be maintenance.
More protein is definitely a good point, but if one is a volume eater, carbs and protein are the go to since they are 4 cal per gram. There is actually a volume eater thread to discusses that.
Its actually been an interesting thread. It seems that those who need volume function better on low to mod fat. And those who dont like volume, do better with more fats and less carbs.
That is a marvelous thread. Really learned a lot of great tips in there.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions