Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
To Keto or Not To Keto?
Replies
-
She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).
@psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.
And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.3 -
She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).
@psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.
And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.
Another term is "metabolic flexibility". Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have metabolic flexibility? We don't need to eat a certain way to attain metabolic flexibility. Isn't metabolic flexibility one of the reasons our species has survived?6 -
She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).
@psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.
And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.
Another term is "metabolic flexibility". Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have metabolic flexibility? We don't need to eat a certain way to attain metabolic flexibility. Isn't metabolic flexibility one of the reasons our species has survived?
That's what always puzzles me about the claims that we should eat a certain kind of way to be able to burn fat. Of course we can all burn fat, and do daily.
I think it's a kind of trickery, taking a concept relevant to certain athletic events (for example, long distance running or biking) and acting as if it has some relevance to whether we burn fat when at rest or walking about or whatnot. Specifically, there's a theory that one can improve the ability to burn fat at higher (but still not super intense) levels of exertion, the idea being to limit the amount of additional fuel one needs when running a marathon or the like.
I am struck by the bit that Ninerbuff quoted above, specifically:
“We’re supposed to be able to use our body fat for energy between meals. That’s why we have body fat! We’re not supposed to need regular snacks—or even regular meals. We’re supposed to feel fine eating just one meal a day if we so choose, as long as we meet our nutritional needs in that one sitting.”
I would say, sure, for the first two sentences (although I would ask what "should" is supposed to imply). But of course we already CAN, we don't need to follow whatever the diet at issue is. Some people like having regular snacks or find they control cals better with snacks, but the idea that absent the special diet we are unable to function without snacks is a total strawman.
Re one meal a day, I don't find that especially hard to do (did it less than a week ago), but I would disagree that there's something wrong with someone who gets hungry when doing that. Much of eating IMO is habitual, and one is normally kind of hungry if one doesn't eat when they normally do. Also, I doubt that humans historically tended to a one meal a day pattern, which goes against the claim that that is how we "should" eat. Humans biologically can deal well for short periods of time when food is less available, sure, and that is probably also why we find it so easy to overeat when food is available, but the idea that we've lost our ability to do this because of our diets again seems like a strawman. I'd bet the vast majority of humans, including those prehistorical or traditional culture humans Shanahan is claiming to be learning this from, would prefer to eat more than that if possible.
Also, I personally find it difficult to meet nutritional needs in one sitting. I eat 2 meals per day now and like it, but it is slightly harder to meet all of my nutritional needs as compared to 3 meals a day just because there's only so much protein and volume I can eat at a time without eating more meat than I prefer. When I ate breakfast I had a third opportunity to consume vegetables, other sources of fiber, and protein. (But this is an aside. I'm sure some can do fine on one meal a day, just not sure why it's supposed to be bad to prefer other patterns.)2 -
Like everyone else has said, it depends on if it is something you can stick to. If you can't handle not eating carbs, then no? If you restrict yourself too hard you could end up binging, and that's no good.0
-
She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).
@psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.
And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.
Another term is "metabolic flexibility". Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have metabolic flexibility? We don't need to eat a certain way to attain metabolic flexibility. Isn't metabolic flexibility one of the reasons our species has survived?
That's what always puzzles me about the claims that we should eat a certain kind of way to be able to burn fat. Of course we can all burn fat, and do daily.
I think it's a kind of trickery, taking a concept relevant to certain athletic events (for example, long distance running or biking) and acting as if it has some relevance to whether we burn fat when at rest or walking about or whatnot. Specifically, there's a theory that one can improve the ability to burn fat at higher (but still not super intense) levels of exertion, the idea being to limit the amount of additional fuel one needs when running a marathon or the like.
I am struck by the bit that Ninerbuff quoted above, specifically:
“We’re supposed to be able to use our body fat for energy between meals. That’s why we have body fat! We’re not supposed to need regular snacks—or even regular meals. We’re supposed to feel fine eating just one meal a day if we so choose, as long as we meet our nutritional needs in that one sitting.”
I would say, sure, for the first two sentences (although I would ask what "should" is supposed to imply). But of course we already CAN, we don't need to follow whatever the diet at issue is. Some people like having regular snacks or find they control cals better with snacks, but the idea that absent the special diet we are unable to function without snacks is a total strawman.
Re one meal a day, I don't find that especially hard to do (did it less than a week ago), but I would disagree that there's something wrong with someone who gets hungry when doing that. Much of eating IMO is habitual, and one is normally kind of hungry if one doesn't eat when they normally do. Also, I doubt that humans historically tended to a one meal a day pattern, which goes against the claim that that is how we "should" eat. Humans biologically can deal well for short periods of time when food is less available, sure, and that is probably also why we find it so easy to overeat when food is available, but the idea that we've lost our ability to do this because of our diets again seems like a strawman. I'd bet the vast majority of humans, including those prehistorical or traditional culture humans Shanahan is claiming to be learning this from, would prefer to eat more than that if possible.
Also, I personally find it difficult to meet nutritional needs in one sitting. I eat 2 meals per day now and like it, but it is slightly harder to meet all of my nutritional needs as compared to 3 meals a day just because there's only so much protein and volume I can eat at a time without eating more meat than I prefer. When I ate breakfast I had a third opportunity to consume vegetables, other sources of fiber, and protein. (But this is an aside. I'm sure some can do fine on one meal a day, just not sure why it's supposed to be bad to prefer other patterns.)
Our real problem is that we have not changed all that much from our pre-historic ancestors. Our drive to eat is the same. We are surrounded by food, they were not.4 -
Assuming everyone knows a calorie deficit is the only way to lose, to me how they get in a deficit is their choice. But when doing anything that requires restriction similar to keto, I do think it is important to note at some point you will have to transition into a more balanced approach, as keto is not maintainable long term. I have lots of friends who did it and then when they hit goal they switched to macros slowly adding in carbs. I just started initially with counting calories and learned moderation that way.0
-
jennacole12 wrote: »Assuming everyone knows a calorie deficit is the only way to lose, to me how they get in a deficit is their choice. But when doing anything that requires restriction similar to keto, I do think it is important to note at some point you will have to transition into a more balanced approach, as keto is not maintainable long term. I have lots of friends who did it and then when they hit goal they switched to macros slowly adding in carbs. I just started initially with counting calories and learned moderation that way.
If someone LIKES eating in the keto style, I don't know why it couldn't be maintained long term. If someone doesn't like it, it won't be easy to maintain (but you can say that about any style of eating, really). If saying it isn't maintainable long term is just another way of saying that very few people would enjoy eating that way for the rest of their life, then I would probably agree with you.2 -
She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).
@psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.
And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.
Another term is "metabolic flexibility". Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have metabolic flexibility? We don't need to eat a certain way to attain metabolic flexibility. Isn't metabolic flexibility one of the reasons our species has survived?
That's what always puzzles me about the claims that we should eat a certain kind of way to be able to burn fat. Of course we can all burn fat, and do daily.
I think it's a kind of trickery, taking a concept relevant to certain athletic events (for example, long distance running or biking) and acting as if it has some relevance to whether we burn fat when at rest or walking about or whatnot. Specifically, there's a theory that one can improve the ability to burn fat at higher (but still not super intense) levels of exertion, the idea being to limit the amount of additional fuel one needs when running a marathon or the like.
I am struck by the bit that Ninerbuff quoted above, specifically:
“We’re supposed to be able to use our body fat for energy between meals. That’s why we have body fat! We’re not supposed to need regular snacks—or even regular meals. We’re supposed to feel fine eating just one meal a day if we so choose, as long as we meet our nutritional needs in that one sitting.”
I would say, sure, for the first two sentences (although I would ask what "should" is supposed to imply). But of course we already CAN, we don't need to follow whatever the diet at issue is. Some people like having regular snacks or find they control cals better with snacks, but the idea that absent the special diet we are unable to function without snacks is a total strawman.
Re one meal a day, I don't find that especially hard to do (did it less than a week ago), but I would disagree that there's something wrong with someone who gets hungry when doing that. Much of eating IMO is habitual, and one is normally kind of hungry if one doesn't eat when they normally do. Also, I doubt that humans historically tended to a one meal a day pattern, which goes against the claim that that is how we "should" eat. Humans biologically can deal well for short periods of time when food is less available, sure, and that is probably also why we find it so easy to overeat when food is available, but the idea that we've lost our ability to do this because of our diets again seems like a strawman. I'd bet the vast majority of humans, including those prehistorical or traditional culture humans Shanahan is claiming to be learning this from, would prefer to eat more than that if possible.
Also, I personally find it difficult to meet nutritional needs in one sitting. I eat 2 meals per day now and like it, but it is slightly harder to meet all of my nutritional needs as compared to 3 meals a day just because there's only so much protein and volume I can eat at a time without eating more meat than I prefer. When I ate breakfast I had a third opportunity to consume vegetables, other sources of fiber, and protein. (But this is an aside. I'm sure some can do fine on one meal a day, just not sure why it's supposed to be bad to prefer other patterns.)
This will probably get me into trouble, but I feel like some of this special-methods stuff relies on a subtle side of the whole "diet industry" pull. If there are obscure secret methods that can be unlocked, that's reinforcement of the idea that something outside our conscious control, outside our current knowledge, is responsible for our gaining excess body weight. If there are tricks or hacks that we simply didn't know about, that's sort of a cognitive hall pass. It's reassuring. Finding the advocated method to work will be confidence building (in the theory, and in oneself), and make it easier to stay the necessary course.
I'm *not* saying that IF, or keto, or any other variation are *not* helpful tools, in a practical sense, for particular people. I'm quite confident that they are.
The factors that make those things helpful for particular people, though, are really not fully self-evident, IMO. To me, some of the "scientific" rationales given by their advocates' marketing don't pass a common sense (let alone science-based) sniff test. As a knowingly overly simplistic example, if fat loss physiologically *requires* the insulin drops that come via fasting, no one should lose fat without fasting. But people do.
It's always possible - for all I know - that genetic variations (or gut microbiome, etc.) play a role that contributes to individual variation in techniques that work best . . . but that doesn't usually seem to be the typical representation, in the marketing of the "special methods" advocates. Besides, among the small number of tightly-controlled intake studies I've seen, there don't seem to be significant exceptions from CICO (the equation, not the calorie counting method as performed by individuals). There's pretty much just the minor variation from the mean that one might expect from known common-sense factors.3 -
I'll be the first to agree you gotta do what works for you.... Everyone's different.
For me, being uber huge... and constantly binging on sugar, likely addicted. Unable to stop myself from stopping at a store or restaurant to gorge my face before supper. Keto completely solve the addiction in just days... Not only that all my back pain disappeared in 3 days. My knee pain was completely gone in about 1 week. My sugar addiction was solved in about 3 days, and I haven't stopped anywhere on my way home from work in 7 weeks, (nor do i even contemplate).
I also Love... and I mean LOVE. Meat. Prime Rib, Pork Chops, Strip Lions, Roasted chicken with Skin, Bacon etc etc... And I'm an amazing cook. I enjoy each and every meal i eat (And I eat the vegetables or salad with said meats). The only thing that changed about my old meals and my new meals is.... I don't have a serving of starch anymore. No potato, no rice, no pasta. That's about it.
Granted I do eat berries, and there is amazing low carb bread available.. and there is even decent low carb pasta... Or cabbage lasagna, Foe Sheppard's pie or a ton of other recipes we make. But the moral of the story is, I love what I eat at every meal.
That all said, don't get the wrong impression. My 10 oz strip loin, i now only eat half of. My prime Rib steak I split with my wife and only eat half of that. I only eat about a 4 ounce roasted chicken thigh and the drumstick get's backed for lunch. But it's not the quantity of food that makes the food so tasty. And with sugar out of my life, I almost never feel hungry, so it's now very easy to be satisfied with smaller portions.
And i was never big on fruits anyway, so no loss for me.
This is why it works for me.2 -
I wonder if since Keto was originally used to treat epilepsy if it would work for tinnitus? Anyone have any experience with that?1
-
I wonder if since Keto was originally used to treat epilepsy if it would work for tinnitus? Anyone have any experience with that?
Actually I do have some experience on that. I have suffered from Tinnitus at multiple times in my life (and for many consecutive years) usually when I was my biggest. I'm not sure if it's the weight loss, or the better overall blood pressure that does it... But currently I don't even remember the last time my ear was ringing... Effectively as of right now I have no Tinnitus. Was it Keto specifically? I don't know that. However if your muscles in general carry less Glycogen and with it less water, resulting in less pressure in the actual muscle mass, then it might be possible that the muscles in and around your ear could very well be effected and potentially reduce the issue.
That's just a wild guess though.
3 -
Poobah1972 wrote: »I wonder if since Keto was originally used to treat epilepsy if it would work for tinnitus? Anyone have any experience with that?
Actually I do have some experience on that. I have suffered from Tinnitus at multiple times in my life (and for many consecutive years) usually when I was my biggest. I'm not sure if it's the weight loss, or the better overall blood pressure that does it... But currently I don't even remember the last time my ear was ringing... Effectively as of right now I have no Tinnitus. Was it Keto specifically? I don't know that. However if your muscles in general carry less Glycogen and with it less water, resulting in less pressure in the actual muscle mass, then it might be possible that the muscles in and around your ear could very well be effected and potentially reduce the issue.
That's just a wild guess though.
Interesting - thanks. Tinnitus is the worst. I've been on a low carb anti inflammatory type diet for a while now for other issues - but the tinnitus hasn't resolved (it is a long term issue). Maybe I should go hard core elimination diet for a few weeks just to see what happens. Unfortunately I hate meat but I might hate tinnitus more.0 -
I'm sorry to hear it hasn't worked for you. Tinnitus can be caused for many different reasons. My uncle Dan has had pretty acute Tinnitus for the majority of his life. His Tinnitus was caused by an bacterial Ear infection. There isn't likely anything he can do to fix it unfortunately.1
-
Poobah1972 wrote: »I'm sorry to hear it hasn't worked for you. Tinnitus can be caused for many different reasons. My uncle Dan has had pretty acute Tinnitus for the majority of his life. His Tinnitus was caused by an bacterial Ear infection. There isn't likely anything he can do to fix it unfortunately.
I'm going to see an oral surgeon soon for TMJ joint disorder so maybe that will work.1 -
She is partly challenging what is being sold to us as healthy. The healthy being lobbied in the political sphere. She has challenged an older study with other research data. I think a lot of this is common sense. But it doesn’t mean that what is common makes sense. 1 in 3 Americans have prediabetes and more than 84% don’t know they have it (cdc.gov).
@psuLemon In context? Metabolic efficiency could be a goal. I am healthy (I think). But there may be some lifelong strategies to take away.
And by metabolic efficiency, what do you think it means? I ask because its a nebulous term that is used fairly incorrectly in the ketogenic community.
Another term is "metabolic flexibility". Correct me if I'm wrong but don't we already have metabolic flexibility? We don't need to eat a certain way to attain metabolic flexibility. Isn't metabolic flexibility one of the reasons our species has survived?
I actually suspect the poster meant metabolic flexibility. Metabolic efficiency means you would hope for a slower metabolism that was more efficient at converting food into energy or store in adipose.
And metabolic flexibility is largely a buzz word in Keto, especially in those who do low carb and do endurance running. It's predicated around running periods to very low carb to increase fat oxidation rates, so when you do carb load before and event that you hope that once glycogen is depleted that the increase in fatty acid mobilisation will take over.
But for some reason, people believe that just eating keto or low carb somehow improves nutrient utilization. And even then, my question would be what is your goal with that? And in my opinion, if people are concerned about improved nutrient utilization, then increasing muscle mass should be the focus. Not only can you improve insulin sensitivity, but you also increase glycogen capacity and improve metabolic health.3 -
No need, just CICO. (Unless for medical reasons.)2
-
Accidental Keto resolved my 40 years of life defining IBS and arrested cataract development which I see as positive.8
-
So I guess after all the back and forth, the answer is, it depends...3
-
-
Poobah1972 wrote: »
indeed...0 -
I wonder if since Keto was originally used to treat epilepsy if it would work for tinnitus? Anyone have any experience with that?
I feel like I've read anecdotal reports of people addressing tinnitus with keto/carnivore diets. I don't think there have been any studies. I'm not sure how seriously to take it because you read about keto diets curing everything from cancer to alcoholism to leaky gut syndrome (not that keto people are the only type of dieters to make inflated claims for their way of eating).
My husband also has tinnitus, I'm sorry to hear about yours. It really sucks.2 -
Maybe go vegetarian then. Cancer is higher risk for meat eaters.@psuLemon Storing fat? Nope. Didn’t say that either. A well functioning body—one that isn’t predisposed to disease. Kind of like what anyone in their right mind would want, right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
iFartMagic wrote: »Like everyone else has said, it depends on if it is something you can stick to. If you can't handle not eating carbs, then no? If you restrict yourself too hard you could end up binging, and that's no good.
everyone eats carbs. (unless they only eat meat and oil or something absurdly limited)
Yes, sure - if low carb or keto suits you, Do it.
If it doesnt (that is me) - Don't.
2 -
@psuLemon Storing fat? Nope. Didn’t say that either. A well functioning body—one that isn’t predisposed to disease. Kind of like what anyone in their right mind would want, right?
So what does metabolic efficiency mean to you? Can you give an example? (It's a sincere question; I haven't seen the term often, and then in contexts where the meanings varied.)0 -
Maybe go vegetarian then. Cancer is higher risk for meat eaters.@psuLemon Storing fat? Nope. Didn’t say that either. A well functioning body—one that isn’t predisposed to disease. Kind of like what anyone in their right mind would want, right?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The correlations with cancer and meats is for processes meats. The newer evidence doesn't show cancer correlations when you separate processed and unprocessed meats5 -
@psuLemon Storing fat? Nope. Didn’t say that either. A well functioning body—one that isn’t predisposed to disease. Kind of like what anyone in their right mind would want, right?
Than you don't understand what metabolic efficiency is. And there is no one diet that will prevent you from being predisposed from disease. That is genetic. A diet can reduce your risk tolerance.
Interestingly enough, Dr Layne Norton just talked about it in his latest "What the fitness" . Just watch the first 2 mins
https://youtu.be/IVTQf5MUsJY 5 -
@psuLemon I didn’t realize the fitness industry created a buzz phrase. I am referring to processing more efficiently. It’s funny though that he is bashing someone who sells supplements while he sells supplements. Oh, and he lost me at the stupid insertion of “wrong”.
And, thank you. I misspoke. You are correct about genetics and diet being able to reduce risk.
His supplements are for performance, which is backed by science. If you watch his supplementation video you would see the expectation he sets. He bashes supplements that are not backed by science.
I do find it a bit funny on how quick you made a judgement against him when up thread, you recommended people to do more research on the video/book you posted.
Ultimately, if you want optimal health in which you can reduce risk of disease, then your diet should consist of lean proteins, plenty of seafood, fruits, and veggies. You should also minimize alcohol and smoking
Additional, you want to have a solid exercise routine consisting of lifting and cardio. Lifting will increase glycogen capacity and improve insulin sensitivity. And adding muscle gain improve strength and improve body function, as a strong body is more resilient.
And lastly, be a healthy weight.7 -
Let's add to that: live in an environment more free of contaniments like smog, get the right amount of rest and sleep, don't engage in risk behavior (smoking, daredevil stunts, etc.), reduce stress, take care of you teeth and oral health (since everything energy wise goes through our mouth), reduce TV programming that may prolonged sitting, etc.@psuLemon I didn’t realize the fitness industry created a buzz phrase. I am referring to processing more efficiently. It’s funny though that he is bashing someone who sells supplements while he sells supplements. Oh, and he lost me at the stupid insertion of “wrong”.
And, thank you. I misspoke. You are correct about genetics and diet being able to reduce risk.
His supplements are for performance, which is backed by science. If you watch his supplementation video you would see the expectation he sets. He bashes supplements that are not backed by science.
I do find it a bit funny on how quick you made a judgment against him when up thread, you recommended people to do more research on the video/book you posted.
Ultimately, if you want optimal health in which you can reduce risk of disease, then your diet should consist of lean proteins, plenty of seafood, fruits, and veggies. You should also minimize alcohol and smoking
Additional, you want to have a solid exercise routine consisting of lifting and cardio. Lifting will increase glycogen capacity and improve insulin sensitivity. And adding muscle gain improve strength and improve body function, as a strong body is more resilient.
And lastly, be a healthy weight.
There are so many things that apply to optimal health besides just food and exercise. I have known many clients that do that right and not apply the others and still have bad health markers like High BP, or stress.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
There's like 200 comments but every dietitian I've seen and talked to has told me that any diet that restricts an entire food group or an entire macro nutrient (carbohydrates in this case) is not a healthy diet, is not sustainable, and will lead to a disordered eating mindset.
Your body is meant to have carbs. Make slow changes to your lifestyle to create a calorie deficit. If less carbs makes you feel better and is keeping you in a deficit, then keep going. But small changes can be just as effective (get apple slices instead of fries at McDonald's. Grilled Chicken instead of fries. Don't have to cut out bread and carbs entirely but sometimes consider getting a burger in a bowl or lettuce wrap instead of on a bun. Small lifestyle changes that change over time is much more sustainable than a drastic "day one of cutting out carbs forever."4 -
Absolutely. I've always argued with many ketoers that if carbs are so bad for us then why the hell are Asians in the East population not 65% overweight/obese if they eat white rice, junk carbs (like candy) etc.? Asians eat more balanced and not in high consumption for the most part. Some of that being financial but many aren't use to eating a lot.SavannahLynn10 wrote: »There's like 200 comments but every dietitian I've seen and talked to has told me that any diet that restricts an entire food group or an entire macro nutrient (carbohydrates in this case) is not a healthy diet, is not sustainable, and will lead to a disordered eating mindset.
Your body is meant to have carbs. Make slow changes to your lifestyle to create a calorie deficit. If less carbs makes you feel better and is keeping you in a deficit, then keep going. But small changes can be just as effective (get apple slices instead of fries at McDonald's. Grilled Chicken instead of fries. Don't have to cut out bread and carbs entirely but sometimes consider getting a burger in a bowl or lettuce wrap instead of on a bun. Small lifestyle changes that change over time is much more sustainable than a drastic "day one of cutting out carbs forever."
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions