Should I eat less carbs?

124

Replies

  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,946 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    i was hoping you or someone else would weigh in...

    i only took a look at a couple of the studies...in the first one the immediate thing i noticed was that while the results were statistically significant at 3 and 6 months - and 12 months, there was NO statistical significance between the results in the low carb and low fat groups....

    That link has been used since like 2014 and I spent the time looking at all 23 studies. Almost all had huge differences between protein intakes. The studies that looking at ab libitum, clearly demonstrated the benefits of low carb. But often, when you are cutting proteins and working on fats, you tend to naturally increase protein. That is because, unless you just add oils, you are generally getting fats + protein. And that is what drives people to be satiated. So what it can tell is this.. if you struggle to eating higher protein, focusing on a low carb diet might be highly beneficial to the individual. Not because carbs are evil, but rather that focusing on getting more fat and less cars, automatically helps drive higher consumption of protein.

    But when you control for protein and calories, that is when you will find nothing is different.

    As was mentioned earlier in the thread in regard to the studies linked.

    Yep. Just reinforcing the point.

    Yes of course and that is appreciated. That point and the others made regarding the link to the studies posted have been largely ignored by the person who posted it.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    ^ Well said. Studies have proven that a ketogenic diet is sub-optimal for high-intensity athletic performance, if for no other reason than for impaired ATP resynthesis:

    7wwuumookzaq.jpg

    It’s a good job your body produces it’s own glycogen then!

    Your body only produces bare minimums. Nowhere near the, what was it, a pound or two or so of glycogen your body can store for sustained high intensity exercise? Releasing from stores is faster than creating on demand too.

    How much protein are you using for muscle matainance ?

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,142 MFP Moderator
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    ^ Well said. Studies have proven that a ketogenic diet is sub-optimal for high-intensity athletic performance, if for no other reason than for impaired ATP resynthesis:

    7wwuumookzaq.jpg

    It’s a good job your body produces it’s own glycogen then!

    Your body only produces bare minimums. Nowhere near the, what was it, a pound or two or so of glycogen your body can store for sustained high intensity exercise? Releasing from stores is faster than creating on demand too.

    How much protein are you using for muscle matainance ?

    That is a loaded question that is based on many variables such as leanness, how active you are, carb levels, etc.. But in general 1.5 to 2.2g/kg is a good start. If you are glycogen depleted and lean, it can be as high as 2.8g/kg.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,345 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,946 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    Interesting info. And consistent with what lemon posted above.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    edited May 2018
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    Just think how much quicker this World record holder could have been if he followed your system?
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/keto-diet-intermittent-fasting-works-for-sports-peformance-2018-4
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,946 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
    Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
    Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!

    Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.


    Straw man much?

    I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!

    If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!

    You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.



    No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.

    And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.

    Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!

    I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!

    I’m not sure what your point is?

    Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.

    But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.

    I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?

    Like I asked, straw man much?

    And you don't need a high fat diet to cover the essentials.. you need 11g of alpha lipoic acid to hit the essential goal, which can occur with about 20g of fats.

    And typically, plant based (carb based diets) are revered to be the healthiest. All of the healthiest and longest living nations in our world are carb based.


    I must say I have always been bemused by certain members of MFP’s forums and their insistence that only a calorie controlled varied diet is ‘true’ way of dieting.

    Surely this site is about helping people find what works for them?


    As to the bolded, isn't that what you just said? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth in the some post??....
    I totally agree. I’m not promoting one diet over another. Both a varied diet in moderation and a LCHF could be equally optimal (for most people).

    Both are just methods of eating in a calorie deficit.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
    Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
    Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!

    Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.


    Straw man much?

    I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!

    If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!

    You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.



    No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.

    And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.

    Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!

    I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!

    I’m not sure what your point is?

    Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.

    But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.

    I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?

    Like I asked, straw man much?

    And you don't need a high fat diet to cover the essentials.. you need 11g of alpha lipoic acid to hit the essential goal, which can occur with about 20g of fats.

    And typically, plant based (carb based diets) are revered to be the healthiest. All of the healthiest and longest living nations in our world are carb based.


    I must say I have always been bemused by certain members of MFP’s forums and their insistence that only a calorie controlled varied diet is ‘true’ way of dieting.

    Surely this site is about helping people find what works for them?


    As to the bolded, isn't that what you just said? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth in the some post??....
    I totally agree. I’m not promoting one diet over another. Both a varied diet in moderation and a LCHF could be equally optimal (for most people).

    Both are just methods of eating in a calorie deficit.

    Not sure what your point is. I’m not insisting that LCHF is the only diet model for achieving a calorie deficit! I see the merits in any healthy diet which allows this, whether it’s LCHF, Clean eating, calorie counting/moderation or low fat high carb!

    I definitely find it bemusing that certain members rush to preach calorie counting and moderation onto people that are clearly keen to try a different model than that.

    Remember what works for you might not work for others.


  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,946 Member
    edited May 2018
    mmapags wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
    Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
    Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!

    Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.


    Straw man much?

    I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!

    If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!

    You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.



    No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.

    And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.

    Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!

    I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!

    I’m not sure what your point is?

    Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.

    But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.

    I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?

    Like I asked, straw man much?

    And you don't need a high fat diet to cover the essentials.. you need 11g of alpha lipoic acid to hit the essential goal, which can occur with about 20g of fats.

    And typically, plant based (carb based diets) are revered to be the healthiest. All of the healthiest and longest living nations in our world are carb based.


    I must say I have always been bemused by certain members of MFP’s forums and their insistence that only a calorie controlled varied diet is ‘true’ way of dieting.

    Surely this site is about helping people find what works for them?


    As to the bolded, isn't that what you just said? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth in the some post??....
    I totally agree. I’m not promoting one diet over another. Both a varied diet in moderation and a LCHF could be equally optimal (for most people).

    Both are just methods of eating in a calorie deficit.

    Not sure what your point is. I’m not insisting that LCHF is the only diet model for achieving a calorie deficit! I see the merits in any healthy diet which allows this, whether it’s LCHF, Clean eating, calorie counting/moderation or low fat high carb!

    I definitely find it bemusing that certain members rush to preach calorie counting and moderation onto people that are clearly keen to try a different model than that.

    Remember what works for you might not work for others.


    So, how does one know if they are in calorie deficit to lose weight if they are not counting. A few can eat intuitively and have that work. Most can't. So, if not calorie counting and moderation with a focus on preference and satiety than what? What would you advocate?

    And who are these "certain" member that you think take such rigid stances. I've seen people all through this thread advocating just what you say in the bold above, including me. Yet you seem keen to argue.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    edited May 2018
    mmapags wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
    Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
    Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!

    Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.


    Straw man much?

    I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!

    If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!

    You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.



    No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.

    And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.

    Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!

    I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!

    I’m not sure what your point is?

    Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.

    But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.

    I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?

    Like I asked, straw man much?

    And you don't need a high fat diet to cover the essentials.. you need 11g of alpha lipoic acid to hit the essential goal, which can occur with about 20g of fats.

    And typically, plant based (carb based diets) are revered to be the healthiest. All of the healthiest and longest living nations in our world are carb based.


    I must say I have always been bemused by certain members of MFP’s forums and their insistence that only a calorie controlled varied diet is ‘true’ way of dieting.

    Surely this site is about helping people find what works for them?


    As to the bolded, isn't that what you just said? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth in the some post??....
    I totally agree. I’m not promoting one diet over another. Both a varied diet in moderation and a LCHF could be equally optimal (for most people).

    Both are just methods of eating in a calorie deficit.

    Not sure what your point is. I’m not insisting that LCHF is the only diet model for achieving a calorie deficit! I see the merits in any healthy diet which allows this, whether it’s LCHF, Clean eating, calorie counting/moderation or low fat high carb!

    I definitely find it bemusing that certain members rush to preach calorie counting and moderation onto people that are clearly keen to try a different model than that.

    Remember what works for you might not work for others.


    So, how does one know if they are in calorie deficit to lose weight if they are not counting. A few can eat intuitively and have that work. Most can't. So, if not calorie counting and moderation with a focus on preference and satiety than what? What would you advocate?

    And who are these "certain" member that you think take such rigid stances. I've seen people all through this thread advocating just what you say in the bold above, including me. Yet you seem keen to argue.

    A few can eat intuitively, but most can’t.

    Do you have research results to back up that statement or is that just your opinion?

    Your comment suggests I am not advocating calorie counting???? Please explain where I have said that doesn’t work?
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,946 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
    Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
    Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!

    Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.


    Straw man much?

    I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!

    If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!

    You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.



    No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.

    And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.

    Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!

    I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!

    I’m not sure what your point is?

    Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.

    But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.

    I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?

    Like I asked, straw man much?

    And you don't need a high fat diet to cover the essentials.. you need 11g of alpha lipoic acid to hit the essential goal, which can occur with about 20g of fats.

    And typically, plant based (carb based diets) are revered to be the healthiest. All of the healthiest and longest living nations in our world are carb based.


    I must say I have always been bemused by certain members of MFP’s forums and their insistence that only a calorie controlled varied diet is ‘true’ way of dieting.

    Surely this site is about helping people find what works for them?


    As to the bolded, isn't that what you just said? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth in the some post??....
    I totally agree. I’m not promoting one diet over another. Both a varied diet in moderation and a LCHF could be equally optimal (for most people).

    Both are just methods of eating in a calorie deficit.

    Not sure what your point is. I’m not insisting that LCHF is the only diet model for achieving a calorie deficit! I see the merits in any healthy diet which allows this, whether it’s LCHF, Clean eating, calorie counting/moderation or low fat high carb!

    I definitely find it bemusing that certain members rush to preach calorie counting and moderation onto people that are clearly keen to try a different model than that.

    Remember what works for you might not work for others.


    So, how does one know if they are in calorie deficit to lose weight if they are not counting. A few can eat intuitively and have that work. Most can't. So, if not calorie counting and moderation with a focus on preference and satiety than what? What would you advocate?

    And who are these "certain" member that you think take such rigid stances. I've seen people all through this thread advocating just what you say in the bold above, including me. Yet you seem keen to argue.

    A few can eat intuitively, but most can’t.

    Do you have research results to back up that statement or is that just your opinion?

    Your comment suggests I am not advocating calorie counting???? Please explain where I have said that doesn’t work?

    Seriously? Read your own posts including the one I quoted. I've wasted enough time trying to make sense of your post. You are all over the block and a black hole of time wasting. So, carry on.
  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Bacon - protein (essential macro nutrient)
    Butter - fat over 400 fatty acids (essential macro nutrient)
    Bulletproof coffee - well coffee!

    Let's not move the goalposts here. Protein and fat are essential macronutrients. Not micronutrients.


    Straw man much?

    I haven’t moved the goal posts, your body needs protein and fat for survival!

    If you don’t want to get essential fats and protein from those sources then choose others!

    You don’t have to eat those foods to follow an optimal LCHF diet - other foods are available.



    No strawman at all. He stated micronutrients. You started listing macronutrients. You changed the terms of the discussion, I can only guess, to avoid addressing the question in MICROnutrients. Kind of intellectually dishonest.

    And you keep playing this "essential for survival" card. Kind of bogus. Surviving and thriving are 2 different things as has already been pointed out.

    Correct. Micronutrients was the original topic, from several of his previous posts:
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!

    I said they are a quick burning fuel and give back little micro nutrient benefits!

    I’m not sure what your point is?

    Micronutrients are important for a healthy diet. Carbs are a good source of micronutrients.

    But you don’t need a diet high in carbs to cover your micro nutrient requirements.

    I’m not sure why you would bring up bullet proof coffee?

    Like I asked, straw man much?

    And you don't need a high fat diet to cover the essentials.. you need 11g of alpha lipoic acid to hit the essential goal, which can occur with about 20g of fats.

    And typically, plant based (carb based diets) are revered to be the healthiest. All of the healthiest and longest living nations in our world are carb based.


    I must say I have always been bemused by certain members of MFP’s forums and their insistence that only a calorie controlled varied diet is ‘true’ way of dieting.

    Surely this site is about helping people find what works for them?


    As to the bolded, isn't that what you just said? You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth in the some post??....
    I totally agree. I’m not promoting one diet over another. Both a varied diet in moderation and a LCHF could be equally optimal (for most people).

    Both are just methods of eating in a calorie deficit.

    Not sure what your point is. I’m not insisting that LCHF is the only diet model for achieving a calorie deficit! I see the merits in any healthy diet which allows this, whether it’s LCHF, Clean eating, calorie counting/moderation or low fat high carb!

    I definitely find it bemusing that certain members rush to preach calorie counting and moderation onto people that are clearly keen to try a different model than that.

    Remember what works for you might not work for others.


    So, how does one know if they are in calorie deficit to lose weight if they are not counting. A few can eat intuitively and have that work. Most can't. So, if not calorie counting and moderation with a focus on preference and satiety than what? What would you advocate?

    And who are these "certain" member that you think take such rigid stances. I've seen people all through this thread advocating just what you say in the bold above, including me. Yet you seem keen to argue.

    A few can eat intuitively, but most can’t.

    Do you have research results to back up that statement or is that just your opinion?

    Your comment suggests I am not advocating calorie counting???? Please explain where I have said that doesn’t work?

    Seriously? Read your own posts including the one I quoted. I've wasted enough time trying to make sense of your post. You are all over the block and a black hole of time wasting. So, carry on.

    Cheerio
  • HealthyAndSober2018
    HealthyAndSober2018 Posts: 25 Member
    Reducing carbs won't speed up weight loss, but it can help some people feel more full.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited May 2018
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg


    This more recent published study (in the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine) disagrees with the findings of that one study you're quoting that says performance suffers on a lchf diet. The discussion gets into it.

    https://www.jssm.org/mob/mobresearch.php?id=jssm-17-259.xml


  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,601 Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    This more recent published study disagrees with the findings of that one study that says performance suffers on a lchf diet. The discussion gets into it. The matter is not decided.
    https://www.jssm.org/mob/mobresearch.php?id=jssm-17-259.xml

    Like other studies this one does not control for protein - in the first group (HC) they are consuming 17% (+\-3%) and in the second 35%
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,142 MFP Moderator
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    This more recent published study disagrees with the findings of that one study that says performance suffers on a lchf diet. The discussion gets into it. The matter is not decided.
    https://www.jssm.org/mob/mobresearch.php?id=jssm-17-259.xml

    Like other studies this one does not control for protein - in the first group (HC) they are consuming 17% (+\-3%) and in the second 35%

    Oh how shocking lol.
  • deannalfisher
    deannalfisher Posts: 5,601 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    This more recent published study disagrees with the findings of that one study that says performance suffers on a lchf diet. The discussion gets into it. The matter is not decided.
    https://www.jssm.org/mob/mobresearch.php?id=jssm-17-259.xml

    Like other studies this one does not control for protein - in the first group (HC) they are consuming 17% (+\-3%) and in the second 35%

    Oh how shocking lol.

    IKR!
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,142 MFP Moderator
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    This more recent published study disagrees with the findings of that one study that says performance suffers on a lchf diet. The discussion gets into it. The matter is not decided.
    https://www.jssm.org/mob/mobresearch.php?id=jssm-17-259.xml

    Like other studies this one does not control for protein - in the first group (HC) they are consuming 17% (+\-3%) and in the second 35%

    Oh how shocking lol.

    IKR!

    I like how it was 35% +/- 19%. It just goes to show the power of protein.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,345 Member
    edited May 2018
    psuLemon wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    It won’t hurt to reduce your carbs, just ensure you are covering your micro nutrients

    you don't even know how many carbs the OP is eating and yet you are advising them to cut carbs?

    The OP is clearly eating a reasonable level or they wouldn’t be questioning reducing the levels - you don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that my friend!

    As long as they are covering their micro nutrient requirements it doesn’t matter how little carbs they eat. Remember carbs are the non essential macro

    Not necessarily...

    FWIW I always questioned the ‘non-essential macro’ since fiber which is essential to a good diet is a carb (yes our bodies process different) but it’s a carb...so doesn’t that actually make at least some carbs essential?

    Carbs and fibre (particularly soluble fibre) is optimal for a healthy diet, but neither are essential for survival. For an optimal diet no more than 100g of carbs are required!

    I’m pretty sure if the OP is a fan of her mash and jacket potatoes she’s probably consuming more than 100g. Besides apart from some quick burning fuel, there’s little micro nutrient benefit from mash or jackets! So straight away there’s some candidates for carb reduction!


    Really? A 100g carbs is optimal...please show me some scientific studies supporting this hypothesis published in a peer reviewed journal with more than 50 participants

    Yes, I would like to see that also.

    Here’s a few to start with

    https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets

    Maybe you have some to disclaim that 100g are not optimal?

    These are the typical biased articles that have been thrown around this forum for years. Those same 23 studies are the ones that don't hold protein and calories steady. Somehow the low fat group is half the protein levels. So if anything, these demonstrate the benefits of high protein diets, which have been already demonstrated hundreds of times to be the best. Not only do they have a higher compliance rate, but increase fullness, maintain metabolism and increase EE.


    Also, picking a 100g without knowing a persons ability for dietary adherence, their goals, their athletic needs, etc.. is short sighted. And yes, while for a small group low carb and keto are very beneficial, but for many others, it's terrible. I thrive, and always have, thrived on high carb diets. When I was around 120g, my performance suffered. To me, the ability to get stronger while getting leaner has greater importance than just getting "flatter" by depleting glycogen. Beside, I enjoy carbs way too much. I could never give up fruit (which is my desert most nights), yokisoba noodles, potatoes, etc... because they are all highly satiating for me.

    Ultimately, the failure rate for all diets is 80 to 90%, so the best case scenario is the monitor the response to foods, and modify your macronutrients to incorporate foods that fill you up the most. If it's fats, then drop carbs. If it's carbs, than drop fats. At the end of the day, compliance is what matters. And no other persons success will be your success. So don't do something because others do it.

    Maybe you are correct - no dietary amount of carbs can be classed as optimal.


    I recognize that. But in the athletic circles, you are at a higher probability of success and optimal performance being carb based. Comparing the results of the low carb and ketogenic studies, the results are extremely varied... so much so that the median turns out ok for the low carb groups.

    So for a person who is performance oriented, their better choice to start is a bit higher on the carbs (maybe close to zone diet); at the very least, that is where I would start people I train. And based on their compliance and performance, I would modify up or down. Heck, the first thing I do with the people I train that are ketogenic is try to get their carbs up to 50g and more importantly, time a lot of those around their workouts.

    But if you are highly sedentary or don't care about performance goals, which is reasonable, than increasing protein and playing around with carbs and fats, is what I would do.

    One major question I ask is, are you a volume eater? Meaning, do you need large quantities of food to fill full. If the answer is yes, then carbs>fats. If the person says they aren't a big eater, than fats > carbs.

    But ultimately, for optimal results and health protein + fiber = more optimal.

    Isn’t the USA 100 mile marathon champ (or previous one) LCHF?

    I’m sure he fuels himself with increased carbs during his race but a majority of the time he’s keto!

    54zbbdnkkjbc.jpg

    Just think how much quicker this World record holder could have been if he followed your system?
    http://uk.businessinsider.com/keto-diet-intermittent-fasting-works-for-sports-peformance-2018-4

    The guy was a record holder prior to being keto. It also doesn't really talk about his intra work out diet. The only mention i saw was he prefers bacon before a race.

    If anything, he would be the anomaly, not the norm. And using ome anecdote to justify the majority is short sighted. In comparison, look at every other athlete and you will see the benefits of carbs. Add in all the bluezones and then you see more benefits.

    But I think the rule is that if an athlete sets a world record and has ever eaten a ketogenic diet for even one day in his life, he's held up and revered as a record setting keto athlete. I'm pretty sure that's the rules. :D

    I've seen Chris Froome held up as an example of a champion keto athlete. But then you dig a little bit and discover that he occasionally trains on low carbs, but most of his training and all of his racing is done on high carbs.