Best macros for weight loss
bevsiemens
Posts: 2 Member
I'm tired of fad diets that drastically reduce carbs, fat, sugar or whatever. They don't work for me ... I get really cranky and cheat. I find I am more satiated and less likely to cheat when I eat a balanced diet. I read online that the most effective approach for many people is eating a range of 5 to 15% carbs, 25 to 35% protein, and 45 to 65% fat (healthy fat, obviously). Thoughts?
Tagged:
2
Replies
-
bevsiemens wrote: »I'm tired of fad diets that drastically reduce carbs, fat, sugar or whatever. They don't work for me ... I get really cranky and cheat. I find I am more satiated and less likely to cheat when I eat a balanced diet. I read online that the most effective approach for many people is eating a range of 5 to 15% carbs, 25 to 35% protein, and 45 to 65% fat (healthy fat, obviously). Thoughts?
That's a keto diet...also a fad diet. It works like any other diet. When you consume fewer calories (less energy) than your body requires, you burn stored energy (bodyfat) to make up that difference and lose weight. There is no such thing as a "best" macros for weight loss...macro ratios are pretty individual. For example, vegans and vegetarians tend to have diets high in carbohydrates...because plant based.
Keto works for some people and doesn't work for others...losing weight comes down to adherence and consistency to whatever it is you are doing.7 -
Carbs are too low! I think carbs, especially simple carbs like bread and sugar, should be limited. Complex carbs in moderation. That works for me. And the occasional treat like a homemade dessert on the weekend or a special occasion.2
-
MFP's default macro goals are very mainstream. The percentages you quote are low carb/high fat.
There's nothing wrong with low carb/high fat, but it only has benefits if it helps you personally better manage appetite and energy level. (That's assuming you're a generally healthy person, with no medical reason to limit carbs.)
The best macro split for weight loss is the one that gives you at least your minimum needs for protein and fats (both of which are essential nutrients**) and also keeps your energy up and your appetite/hunger manageable. Exactly what that is can vary individually, and the best way to figure it out is to experiment, IMO.
** "Essential nutrients" in this case means nutrients we need to eat, because our bodies are unable to manufacture them out of other nutrients. Some essential amino acids (EAAs, which are components of protein) and essential fatty acids (EFAs, which are components of fats) are "essential" in that sense. Carbs are not "essential" in that sense, because our bodies can make them out of fats or protein if needed.
Some people find that lower carbs help them manage their appetite. Those people will benefit from a lower carb way of eating. Other people find that lower carbs make their energy level tank. Those people will benefit from a higher carb way of eating. Probably some people are more neutral on that scale, too . . . but they don't have any reason to talk about it.
MFP's default macros are 50% carbs, 20% protein and 30% fat.
Personally, I shoot for a minimum number of protein grams, a minimum number of fat grams, and let carbs fall wherever they need to, so that calories balance. Retrospectively, my carb intake these days (in maintenance) usually ends up around that 50% value, maybe +/- 5%. Fats and protein run around 25% each. (I gather it's unusual, but fats are the macro I'm most likely to under-eat if I don't pay attention.)
Most of my carb intake is from fruit, veggies, no/low fat dairy foods, and some whole grains, not cookies, cakes, candies, soda/pop, etc. That's just FYI: I don't demonize cookies, cakes, candies, soda/pop, etc. I do eat some, but I'm more inclined to crave things like cheese, salty/savory foods, etc., and love veggies/fruits so eat a lot of them for enjoyment.
I lost weight fine eating similar percentages of the macros, and maintain weight fine the same way. YMMV, because we're all individuals with different preferences, genetics, cultural context and history, strengths, and limitations.
10 -
Use grams and not percentages.
Start with protein. .7 to 1 gram per lb of bodyweight, use lean bodyweight if you're very overweight. Fats are around .4 grams per lb of lean bodyweight. Fill in the rest of your targeted calories with whatever you want.1 -
bevsiemens wrote: »I'm tired of fad diets that drastically reduce carbs, fat, sugar or whatever. They don't work for me ... I get really cranky and cheat. I find I am more satiated and less likely to cheat when I eat a balanced diet. I read online that the most effective approach for many people is eating a range of 5 to 15% carbs, 25 to 35% protein, and 45 to 65% fat (healthy fat, obviously). Thoughts?
I support people eating however satiates them while providing minimum needs for protein and fats.
I'm confused because you say you're "tired of fad diets that drastically reduce carbs" and then go on to ask about keto macros, which, unless you are a juvenile epileptic, is a fad diet that that drastically reduces carbs, and so cannot be considered "balanced."
Here's how MFP gets their default macros:
http://blog.myfitnesspal.com/ask-the-dietitian-whats-the-best-carb-protein-and-fat-breakdown-for-weight-loss/
"...The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends eating within the following ranges:
Carbohydrates: 45–65% of calories
Fat: 25–35% of calories
Protein: 10–30% of calories
...MyFitnessPal’s current default goals distribute calories as follows: 50% from carbohydrates, 20% from protein and 30% from fat."3 -
bevsiemens wrote: »I'm tired of fad diets that drastically reduce carbs, fat, sugar or whatever. They don't work for me ... I get really cranky and cheat. I find I am more satiated and less likely to cheat when I eat a balanced diet. I read online that the most effective approach for many people is eating a range of 5 to 15% carbs, 25 to 35% protein, and 45 to 65% fat (healthy fat, obviously). Thoughts?
Give it a try if you want, there is nothing inherently unhealthy about reducing carbs (especially processed and high glycemic carbs) and replacing those calories with healthy fats. Everyone is different, and while most folks might consider the macro splits you listed as a fad, you might find that you are one of those "many people". If you find that isn't sustainable, or is too restrictive/stressful, then experiment with a different mix of macros. Organizations put out these guidelines and recommendations as a suggested starting point for the average person. They aren't Laws etched into stone tablets. You'll most likely need to figure out what works for you - what effortlessly keeps you healthy and can be your forever way of eating. As your health, body, and activity levels change you will likely want to tweak those macros to suit your present needs.
1 -
I eat low carb because I don't particularly like bread, pasta, rice, etc. But healthy fruit and veggies in low to healthy amounts take my carbs way over that percentage.1
-
I go with 35% proteins /35% carbs/30% fat. its balanced and works for me. It was recommended by my Dr.2
-
LOL you people have to get away from percentages...1
-
I find that if I try to count my percentages I get frustrated and the eating plan becomes hard for me. So I have studied the main foods I eat, learned how to cook them and the portion size and go from there. I am usually amazed at the end of the day how near to my calorie range for loosing weight that I am and without all the counting etc throughout the day. I just log the food in and let the fitnesspal count it out for me. So far so good. I am open to change along the way but for now it is a good place for me to be. Best wishes everyone!
1 -
bevsiemens wrote: »I'm tired of fad diets that drastically reduce carbs, fat, sugar or whatever. They don't work for me ... I get really cranky and cheat. I find I am more satiated and less likely to cheat when I eat a balanced diet. I read online that the most effective approach for many people is eating a range of 5 to 15% carbs, 25 to 35% protein, and 45 to 65% fat (healthy fat, obviously). Thoughts?
I tell people to play with it till you find your sweet spot.
I started on the ADA standard diabetic diet at 50% carb 30% protein 20% fat... for a while it was okay, I mean I lost some weight with it, but I struggled with it. It didn't make me feel good, it made me hungry and I had a lot of cravings, it was hard to maintain.
I started changing the macros. Put down the carbs, put up the protein, put up the fats... changes +/- 5-10% at a time.
I found the more I lowered my carbs, the better it was for me. But I was putting protein up a little too high. Then I started raising the fats as I continued to lower carbs, and I really started getting better. I found my sweet spot at 5% carbs/25% protein/70% fat.
I don't follow any specific diet plan but it seems that how I eat is similar to keto. Keto may be considered a "fad" diet but eating low carb/high fat isn't a fad, various human cultures have been living like that for centuries.
No one diet works for anyone, that's why it is so important to try moving the numbers around and experiment. See how lowering one thing/raising another for a couple of months makes you feel. How do your labs look. If not better, then tweak again. Personalize it till you find the best combination for you that keeps you healthy, sated, and is a way you can live with.
1 -
I have been focusing on low carb mainly because I'm T2 diabetic but Im not on any specific diet. I also have been doing intermittent fasting 16/8 for the past year or so. I stay away from fast food for the most part but there are cheats here and there.
I recently gave up alcohol as well so hopefully I will see some improvement.
I say just do whatever works for you, everyone is different. Whatever you come up with make sure it's sustainable.
Cheers!!0 -
bevsiemens wrote: »I'm tired of fad diets that drastically reduce carbs, fat, sugar or whatever. They don't work for me ... I get really cranky and cheat. I find I am more satiated and less likely to cheat when I eat a balanced diet. I read online that the most effective approach for many people is eating a range of 5 to 15% carbs, 25 to 35% protein, and 45 to 65% fat (healthy fat, obviously). Thoughts?
You're saying you're fed up of diets telling you to eat x and reduce y, yet you want to do this again, this time with high fat?
The secret is that everyone is different and some people thrive on a high fat diet while others would gnaw their arm off, again others need a diet higher in carbs and others feel full and happy on higher protein. Don't listen to what 'they' say, instead you need to figure out what works for you.
Why not just log your food truthfully for a bit and eat what you'd normally eat. Then make small changes, like: oh, that breakfast was so high in calories. What happens if I reduce the size a bit, or replace something with something else. And then note how you feel with that. Left you starving? Try something else. And who knows, maybe you're someone who needs a huge breakfast. Then experiment with another meal and figure out this way what your needs are.3 -
bevsiemens wrote: »I'm tired of fad diets that drastically reduce carbs, fat, sugar or whatever. They don't work for me ... I get really cranky and cheat. I find I am more satiated and less likely to cheat when I eat a balanced diet. I read online that the most effective approach for many people is eating a range of 5 to 15% carbs, 25 to 35% protein, and 45 to 65% fat (healthy fat, obviously). Thoughts?
Yep most people get cranky when they leave out carbs and then they cheat, a very common scenario.1 -
I eat 5% carbs /25% protein /70% fat. That's 20 grams or less of carbs per day. Low-carb diets aren't a fad, they are how many cultures ate for ages. As we evolved, humans only ate plants when they couldn't get meat. There's reasons for that.
Fat is more satiating, when you're diet is high fat/low carb most people report a significant decrease in hunger pangs and cravings between meals.
Also when your body goes off carbs it eventually becomes fat-adapted (burns fat for fuel instead of recently consumed carbs). Fat adaption is associated with decreased appetite, higher energy levels, and improved sleep.
Carbs make a lot of people hungrier; so cutting them a little bit doesn't work. That's why people get cranky then "cheat."
Mainly it depends on the kind of carbs-- moderate to low-carb veggies & fruits are fine for most (not all) people on low-carb diets. They don't tend to stir up cravings or cause massive blood sugar spikes, they don't make you hungry.
Added sugar and grains are the real culprits. Sugar we know is unnecessary, but grains are equally unnecessary. There is no such thing as "unprocessed grains" because we can't digest them without processing them. Even "brown" or "whole" grains are processed, just less processed.
Grains digest so quickly that they are harder to fill up on and make you hungry for more quite quickly. It's a long and crazy story what grains do to the metabolism, especially anyone who is insulin resistant, diabetic, hypoglycemic, etc. (which most people in my country are, many undiagnosed).
There are tricks people use to slow down the digestion of grains-- eat them in moderation, choose whole grains, eat them with protein, etc. Another solution is, don't eat them, lol. Problem solved. There is nothing grains give us that you can't get from veggies, fruits, and animal products.
We like grains, let's face it they're good. Seems impossible to think of giving them up-- until you do and realize you don't care anymore because you're feeling so much better without them.
This is getting long and has the potential to get longer because it's a complex subject. Feel free to ask me any specific questions about what my diet is like or how it has affected me.
I'll just end with this-- I do not feel restricted at all eating this way. On the contrary, I feel more free than ever, like a drug addict free of the drug and my head is finally clear. I don't miss it, I don't feel I'm missing out anything, and I'm getting healthier.
PS to anyone- if you eat carbs, that's fine. Not judging. I wish you well. I'm not asking you to change. If eating grains or whatever works for you, that's great that your body can handle it. If you enjoy some sugar sometimes as a treat, likewise, that's fantastic. I'm happy you can do that. Really. Just offering an alternative perspective here.0 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »I eat 5% carbs /25% protein /70% fat. That's 20 grams or less of carbs per day. Low-carb diets aren't a fad, they are how many cultures ate for ages. As we evolved, humans only ate plants when they couldn't get meat. There's reasons for that.
Fat is more satiating, when you're diet is high fat/low carb most people report a significant decrease in hunger pangs and cravings between meals.
Also when your body goes off carbs it eventually becomes fat-adapted (burns fat for fuel instead of recently consumed carbs). Fat adaption is associated with decreased appetite, higher energy levels, and improved sleep.
Carbs make a lot of people hungrier; so cutting them a little bit doesn't work. That's why people get cranky then "cheat."
Mainly it depends on the kind of carbs-- moderate to low-carb veggies & fruits are fine for most (not all) people on low-carb diets. They don't tend to stir up cravings or cause massive blood sugar spikes, they don't make you hungry.
Added sugar and grains are the real culprits. Sugar we know is unnecessary, but grains are equally unnecessary. There is no such thing as "unprocessed grains" because we can't digest them without processing them. Even "brown" or "whole" grains are processed, just less processed.
Grains digest so quickly that they are harder to fill up on and make you hungry for more quite quickly. It's a long and crazy story what grains do to the metabolism, especially anyone who is insulin resistant, diabetic, hypoglycemic, etc. (which most people in my country are, many undiagnosed).
There are tricks people use to slow down the digestion of grains-- eat them in moderation, choose whole grains, eat them with protein, etc. Another solution is, don't eat them, lol. Problem solved. There is nothing grains give us that you can't get from veggies, fruits, and animal products.
We like grains, let's face it they're good. Seems impossible to think of giving them up-- until you do and realize you don't care anymore because you're feeling so much better without them.
This is getting long and has the potential to get longer because it's a complex subject. Feel free to ask me any specific questions about what my diet is like or how it has affected me.
I'll just end with this-- I do not feel restricted at all eating this way. On the contrary, I feel more free than ever, like a drug addict free of the drug and my head is finally clear. I don't miss it, I don't feel I'm missing out anything, and I'm getting healthier.
PS to anyone- if you eat carbs, that's fine. Not judging. I wish you well. I'm not asking you to change. If eating grains or whatever works for you, that's great that your body can handle it. If you enjoy some sugar sometimes as a treat, likewise, that's fantastic. I'm happy you can do that. Really. Just offering an alternative perspective here.
Well said! You're absolutely right, there are some people who just do better low carb. And that's great!0 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »I eat 5% carbs /25% protein /70% fat. That's 20 grams or less of carbs per day. Low-carb diets aren't a fad, they are how many cultures ate for ages. As we evolved, humans only ate plants when they couldn't get meat. There's reasons for that.
Fat is more satiating, when you're diet is high fat/low carb most people report a significant decrease in hunger pangs and cravings between meals.
[snip]
PS to anyone- if you eat carbs, that's fine. Not judging. I wish you well. I'm not asking you to change. If eating grains or whatever works for you, that's great that your body can handle it. If you enjoy some sugar sometimes as a treat, likewise, that's fantastic. I'm happy you can do that. Really. Just offering an alternative perspective here.
This is an interesting topic. I think it's more accurate to say that before the modern age, people ate what was available. Sure, people in the arctic north ate high fat. Mangoes weren't available; muktuk (sea mammal blubber) was.
However, people such as the Inuit weren't just eating random high fat, they were eating high fat specific to their environment, and they had genetic mutations that made this beneficial to them.
How the Inuit adapted to Ice Age living and a high-fat diet
Greenland natives - the Inuit - have mutations in genes that control how the body uses fat which provides the clearest evidence to date that human populations are adapted to particular diets according to new UCL research.
The genetic differences allow the Inuit to physically adapt to survive Arctic conditions and live healthily on a traditional diet which is rich in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from marine mammal fat.
The Inuit diet is an example of how high levels of omega-3 fatty acids can counterbalance the bad health effects of a high-fat diet. Fish oils were thought to be protective as the Inuit have a low incidence of cardiovascular disease, but having discovered their special genetic adaptations to this diet, the researchers from UCL, UC Berkeley and the University of Copenhagen say the benefits of the Inuit diet cannot be extrapolated to other populations.
Read more: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2015/sep/how-inuit-adapted-ice-age-living-and-high-fat-diet
************
I think you're also saying that satiety is individual, and I agree with that. For me it is also related to my environment. I like hot foods when it's cold, and cold foods when it's hot. During my months in south Costa Rica, a diet full of tropical fruit, rice, and beans - high carb and lowish protein - worked well for me. But once I came back to the US north east, I wanted more protein and cooked vegetables, and less raw fruit.
3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »MacLowCarbing wrote: »I eat 5% carbs /25% protein /70% fat. That's 20 grams or less of carbs per day. Low-carb diets aren't a fad, they are how many cultures ate for ages. As we evolved, humans only ate plants when they couldn't get meat. There's reasons for that.
Fat is more satiating, when you're diet is high fat/low carb most people report a significant decrease in hunger pangs and cravings between meals.
[snip]
PS to anyone- if you eat carbs, that's fine. Not judging. I wish you well. I'm not asking you to change. If eating grains or whatever works for you, that's great that your body can handle it. If you enjoy some sugar sometimes as a treat, likewise, that's fantastic. I'm happy you can do that. Really. Just offering an alternative perspective here.
This is an interesting topic. I think it's more accurate to say that before the modern age, people ate what was available. Sure, people in the arctic north ate high fat. Mangoes weren't available; muktuk (sea mammal blubber) was.
However, people such as the Inuit weren't just eating random high fat, they were eating high fat specific to their environment, and they had genetic mutations that made this beneficial to them.
How the Inuit adapted to Ice Age living and a high-fat diet
Greenland natives - the Inuit - have mutations in genes that control how the body uses fat which provides the clearest evidence to date that human populations are adapted to particular diets according to new UCL research.
The genetic differences allow the Inuit to physically adapt to survive Arctic conditions and live healthily on a traditional diet which is rich in omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids from marine mammal fat.
The Inuit diet is an example of how high levels of omega-3 fatty acids can counterbalance the bad health effects of a high-fat diet. Fish oils were thought to be protective as the Inuit have a low incidence of cardiovascular disease, but having discovered their special genetic adaptations to this diet, the researchers from UCL, UC Berkeley and the University of Copenhagen say the benefits of the Inuit diet cannot be extrapolated to other populations.
Read more: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2015/sep/how-inuit-adapted-ice-age-living-and-high-fat-diet
************
I think you're also saying that satiety is individual, and I agree with that. For me it is also related to my environment. I like hot foods when it's cold, and cold foods when it's hot. During my months in south Costa Rica, a diet full of tropical fruit, rice, and beans - high carb and lowish protein - worked well for me. But once I came back to the US north east, I wanted more protein and cooked vegetables, and less raw fruit.
Not surprising, humans can generate over 50 mutation per generation (20 years) and adapting to a high omega 3 diet for the Inuit makes sense. Scandinavian and early European not to mention other northern civilizations around the world that were hunter gathers and lived above the 39th parallel consumed a similar diet except for maybe the high omega 3's, for those long winter months that lasted most of the year during the last ice age of 125,000 to 14,500 years ago. Humans are adaptable and hopefully we adapt better to the diet we now have the pleasure to be consuming.0 -
My goal is...
50% protein
30% carbs
20% fats
I eat a lot of grass fed beef, chicken, eggs, salmon, bacon, cruciferous vegetables, some brown rice, some legumes, and avocado or olive oil.
Like a few others have said I don't get bogged down by the percentages. If I eat protein the most in a day I am happy.
I have found in order not to be hungry I also include 1 protein shake a day as a snack or drink as part of a meal. I am a big fan of Ensure™ MAX Protein.
So far down 40 lbs in 2 months.1 -
Fattyohfat wrote: »My goal is...
50% protein
30% carbs
20% fats
I eat a lot of grass fed beef, chicken, eggs, salmon, bacon, cruciferous vegetables, some brown rice, some legumes, and avocado or olive oil.
Like a few others have said I don't get bogged down by the percentages. If I eat protein the most in a day I am happy.
I have found in order not to be hungry I also include 1 protein shake a day as a snack or drink as part of a meal. I am a big fan of Ensure™ MAX Protein.
So far down 40 lbs in 2 months.
40 pounds in 2 months seems like a massive drop, how much weight have you got to lose?0 -
Interesting read. I get into that kind of stuff. Life is fascinating.
I agree that genetics do play a significant role in the metabolism, which is why I pretty much always say that diets aren't a one-size-fits-all thing.
But when it comes to the claim that "you cannot extrapolate from them to other populations" I remain skeptical. There are many recent studies showing high fat/low carb diets lower triglycerides and raise HDL. The effect is somewhat less understood with LDL; some people find their LDL going up, some find it unchanged, some find it going down. More importantly seems to be the type of LDL, whether it be the large, buoyant LDL that is considered safe or the small, dense LDL that is more damaging. And on top of that, 80% of our cholesterol doesn't even come from dietary cholesterol anyway.... there is still too much to be understood on such issues.
There have been a lot of poorly done studies on fat in the past that led to a lot of confusion on dietary fat that is pervasive today, and as far as I can tell, there is no scientific consensus yet. The data is conflicting, and there are still a lot of political and business influences pushing agendas. In my lifetime, I've seen coronary disease, diabetes, obesity, etc. increase exponentially when modern Americans were recommended to eat low fat, low saturated fat, reduce their red meat intake, and to make carbs the base of their diet. And since reaching that peak, I've seen new data that purports to challenge those claims.
0 -
Fattyohfat wrote: »My goal is...
50% protein
30% carbs
20% fats
I eat a lot of grass fed beef, chicken, eggs, salmon, bacon, cruciferous vegetables, some brown rice, some legumes, and avocado or olive oil.
Like a few others have said I don't get bogged down by the percentages. If I eat protein the most in a day I am happy.
I have found in order not to be hungry I also include 1 protein shake a day as a snack or drink as part of a meal. I am a big fan of Ensure™ MAX Protein.
So far down 40 lbs in 2 months.
That's a massive loss, and a massive amount of protein, and then not even as actual protein but as some highly processed food stuff. I mean, you do you but make sure that your kidneys are fine and that you don't stink everyone around you away.0 -
MacLowCarbing wrote: »Interesting read. I get into that kind of stuff. Life is fascinating.
I agree that genetics do play a significant role in the metabolism, which is why I pretty much always say that diets aren't a one-size-fits-all thing.
But when it comes to the claim that "you cannot extrapolate from them to other populations" I remain skeptical. There are many recent studies showing high fat/low carb diets lower triglycerides and raise HDL. The effect is somewhat less understood with LDL; some people find their LDL going up, some find it unchanged, some find it going down. More importantly seems to be the type of LDL, whether it be the large, buoyant LDL that is considered safe or the small, dense LDL that is more damaging. And on top of that, 80% of our cholesterol doesn't even come from dietary cholesterol anyway.... there is still too much to be understood on such issues.
There have been a lot of poorly done studies on fat in the past that led to a lot of confusion on dietary fat that is pervasive today, and as far as I can tell, there is no scientific consensus yet. The data is conflicting, and there are still a lot of political and business influences pushing agendas. In my lifetime, I've seen coronary disease, diabetes, obesity, etc. increase exponentially when modern Americans were recommended to eat low fat, low saturated fat, reduce their red meat intake, and to make carbs the base of their diet. And since reaching that peak, I've seen new data that purports to challenge those claims.
I'd wager that's because people don't actually follow the guidance. Nowhere in any dietary guidance have I ever seen it be recommended to reduce fat and eat a bunch of highly processed food goods. The recommendations have always been for lots of veg and fruit along with whole grains and moderate amounts of meat and dietary fat.
While I would agree that there wasn't really any science to back up a low fat diet in the 70s, I would also argue that there was also little adherence to such recommendations as consumption of dietary fat has actually increased since the 70s and relatively few people even get close to the recommendations for fruits and vegetables.
The consumption of meat and poultry products is pretty much on par for what it was in the 70s. US consumption of cooking oils and fats sits around 36 Lbs per year on average which is 3x what it was in the 70s. Consumption of sugars and sweeteners which so often focused on with the obesity epidemic is actually pretty much on par for what that consumption was in the 70s. The two biggest increases in the US diet from the 70s have been fat and oils and grains...and I'd wager most of those grains aren't whole grains as recommended.
1 -
Wolfman just saved me a bunch of typing.
On top of that, since the 1980s, usually pointed out as the start of the "obesity crisis" we move a lot less in daily life. (I was alive and firmly adult in 1980. Huge changes since then, both in the social expectations around food and eating (moreMoreMORE), and in daily life movement (ubiquitous computers, less home cooking activity, more automation or hiring out of physical home tasks, etc.).
The latter aren't macros, but they matter when we inaccurately look at recent history of eating habits as the full story.1 -
@cwolfman13 @AnnPT77
I don't completely disagree, the obesity epidemic was also largely caused by reduction in activity and a rise in the availability of processed foods. There has been a combination of factors. I was mainly focusing on the low-fat craze and how remnants of it still linger in many of the recommendations even though the data was faulty.
When I was young and the food pyramid came out it was drilled into us that we should make carbs the foundation of our diet and eat 6-11 servings per day. We were told eggs were in general bad for you and we should not eat more than 4 per week. We were told to eat margarine instead of butter, that cheap, processed seed oils were healthy, and we should lay off animal fats-- particularly beef.
There have been a lot of studies that have thrown all of those recommendations into question, and progress to make corrections and change dietary advice from the so-called experts has been slow (probably because it would require admitting fault). Hence, at this point, I continue to remain skeptical on the subject, and am open to learning and experimenting to see what works for my body.
So while they may have found a genetic mutation in the Inuit, I don't think it is evidence that not having that specific genetic mutation means a high fat/low carb/high protein diet should be avoided.0 -
It's the Standard American Diet that is killing people, not macro's or the USDA dietary guidelines imo, which on a macro level are pretty much identical to the Mediterranean diet and a vegetarian diet can easily be composed to show similar if not exactly the same macro breakdown as both of those, yeah, it's not macro's even though completely different foods can be consumed.
In 1977 when the Dietary Goals for Americans were released by the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs which was led by governor George McGovern the basic premise was based on the foundation that dietary cholesterol, saturated fat, sugar and salt were linked directly to heart disease, cancer, as well as other health concerns which led to the dietary goals to increase carbohydrates to 55-60%, decrease dietary fat to under 30% and with about an equal distribution for saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated, basically about 10% each. I believe fat intake was around 42% back then. Decrease cholesterol to under 300 mg/d. Reduce sugar to less than 15% of calories and decrease salt to 3g/d. 3 years later in 1980 we had the first Dietary Guidelines. So yeah, the guidelines had a drastic reduction in dietary fat and was made up by consuming more carbohydrates. Protein seems to be a constant in human nutrition where it will normally fall in and around 15% of total calories in ad libitum situations regardless of other macro's, funny how that works I thought.
Back to what's killing us. The SAD was basically the solution to a problem at that time, which was malnutrition, food security and affordability for all Americans post WW2. So back then in the 70's it was important to first produce lots of food at scale to make food more easily available. It can't cost too much, so we make enough food that is cheap and affordable. Next it has to be non perishable and portable, in other words we can't make lots of food available if it needs to be consumed right away, I mean they could have but whole foods would be more expensive, seasonal, and are perishable very quickly, that gets expensive. And finally the food has to taste really good, otherwise people aren't going to eat it and certainly won't pay for it and that will effect shareholder value for the companies that make these foods. So make lots of unperishable and portable food at scale and make it cheap and make it taste good. The solution to this business problem is what we have today, basically when you walk into any store that sells food what we see is that solution to that problem which is the standard American diet.
American's consume about 75% of their calories from processed foods with around 60% coming from ultra processed foods, children and teens consume 67% of their calories just from what's classified as UPF up from 61% in 1999 and the consumption of whole foods is down from 32% to 27% from around 2001 to 2018. Not a good look for Americans and I suspect people won't be cooking broccoli or asparagus with their Micky D's or pizza take away any time soon either.
The overconsumption of these foods, which are a given according to the NIH will cause people to overeat, become overweight and obese and increase the cascade of inflammatory machinery from the mitochondria down and is responsible pretty much single handed for the consequences that are happening right now in healthcare and of course the main driver of the obesity epidemic. imo1 -
neanderthin wrote: »It's the Standard American Diet that is killing people, not macro's or the USDA dietary guidelines imo, which on a macro level are pretty much identical to the Mediterranean diet and a vegetarian diet can easily be composed to show similar if not exactly the same macro breakdown as both of those, yeah, it's not macro's even though completely different foods can be consumed.
In 1977 when the Dietary Goals for Americans were released by the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs which was led by governor George McGovern the basic premise was based on the foundation that dietary cholesterol, saturated fat, sugar and salt were linked directly to heart disease, cancer, as well as other health concerns which led to the dietary goals to increase carbohydrates to 55-60%, decrease dietary fat to under 30% and with about an equal distribution for saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated, basically about 10% each. I believe fat intake was around 42% back then. Decrease cholesterol to under 300 mg/d. Reduce sugar to less than 15% of calories and decrease salt to 3g/d. 3 years later in 1980 we had the first Dietary Guidelines. So yeah, the guidelines had a drastic reduction in dietary fat and was made up by consuming more carbohydrates. Protein seems to be a constant in human nutrition where it will normally fall in and around 15% of total calories in ad libitum situations regardless of other macro's, funny how that works I thought.
Back to what's killing us. The SAD was basically the solution to a problem at that time, which was malnutrition, food security and affordability for all Americans post WW2. So back then in the 70's it was important to first produce lots of food at scale to make food more easily available. It can't cost too much, so we make enough food that is cheap and affordable. Next it has to be non perishable and portable, in other words we can't make lots of food available if it needs to be consumed right away, I mean they could have but whole foods would be more expensive, seasonal, and are perishable very quickly, that gets expensive. And finally the food has to taste really good, otherwise people aren't going to eat it and certainly won't pay for it and that will effect shareholder value for the companies that make these foods. So make lots of unperishable and portable food at scale and make it cheap and make it taste good. The solution to this business problem is what we have today, basically when you walk into any store that sells food what we see is that solution to that problem which is the standard American diet.
American's consume about 75% of their calories from processed foods with around 60% coming from ultra processed foods, children and teens consume 67% of their calories just from what's classified as UPF up from 61% in 1999 and the consumption of whole foods is down from 32% to 27% from around 2001 to 2018. Not a good look for Americans and I suspect people won't be cooking broccoli or asparagus with their Micky D's or pizza take away any time soon either.
The overconsumption of these foods, which are a given according to the NIH will cause people to overeat, become overweight and obese and increase the cascade of inflammatory machinery from the mitochondria down and is responsible pretty much single handed for the consequences that are happening right now in healthcare and of course the main driver of the obesity epidemic. imo
Once again, no disagreement here for the most part.
The only disagreement is that I do think macros played a role... by villainizing one macro (incorrectly, I might add), and certain foods associated with it, and promoting another (again, incorrectly), it drove people's dietary choices. That in part encouraged people started to go from eggs and bacon breakfasts and meat & potato dinners to the crazy processed food diet to begin with.
These same people were bombarded with ads by food manufacturers claiming processed carbs were part of a healthy meal plan, pointing to the government agency regulations that were promoting high carb/low fat. Likewise with the manufacturers of so-called low-fat products, again pointing to those same guidelines, claiming that it was better to eat anything marked low-fat or nonfat, with all its added thickeners and sweeteners to improve the flavor, than to eat something like regular yogurt or even an egg yolk.
These campaigns very much confused people about nutrition and what they should be eating. A lot of people thought they were doing great because they were picking up those foods with those labels that claimed products were "heart healthy" or "low fat" or "part of an approved balance diet" or some such nonsense. They thought they were doing great by skipping eggs for breakfast and eating processed cereals with sugar.
When I was a kid, almost every breakfast commercial aimed at us during cartoon times told us that their cereal, along with toast, milk & juice, were a part of a "balanced diet."
Data contrary to what had become the standard at that that time was not readily embraced-- it was often ignored, quashed, or unfairly discredited. Even health agencies were extremely slow to embrace any changes, despite when data came out debunking the older theories upon which industries had built their brand. Even worse, sponsored studies designed specifically to 'prove' what industries wanted to be proven became a very lucrative way for scientists and various scientific organizations to make money.
So yeah, it all played a role as far as I'm concerned-- by confusing people.
That said, I never claimed eating a high or moderate carb diet of healthier whole grains and lean meats and polyunsaturated fats was bad for people. I don't think the solution is in necessarily how you balance your macros, but from what kind of foods you're getting them-- then find the balance that works for you.
My argument was merely that high-fat diets aren't bad either, and some people benefit more from them than from diets with higher carb ratios... and I don't think you need to be an Inuit for that to be the case.
1 -
I've been on a ketogenic/low carb diet for a dozen years, so I do understand where your coming from but any culture that consumes a diet that is mostly whole and dictated by that culture we generally find a healthy population not to mention the other social and economical confounders that play probably, the most important part of health.
For example the Adventists of Loma Linda who are revered for their long life and health and are part of the blue zone when compared to another religious group like the Mormons who happen to live as long as the Adventists and are omnivore never gets any notice. Or the fact that only 30% are actually vegetarian. also the fact that Ikarus in Sardinia that's also part of blue zone is only relevant in a couple of regions in the mountainous areas where life hasn't changed for centuries, who are sustenance farmers and sheppard's of sheep and goats where the men live as long as the women, which never happens, and that's because they walk on average around 15 kilometes extra a day. The rest of Sardinia's life expectancy is nowhere near that and actually it's around the same as Canada or Spain. Hong Kong has the longest lived people by population and they also consume the most animal product, more than Argentina, Australia and the USA. Even the population of France lives longer which also has the lowest incident of heart disease in the world while consuming one of the higher diets of saturated fat. Ancel Keys of the Mediterranean Diet fame called that the "French Paradox" because he didn't have an answer and it was in direct conflict to his epidemiologic data, which is a pretty funny reality to be living in. And of course it was found out later that it wasn't only France that contradicted his data but another 14 countries he left out of his study, it was actually a 22 country study. Keys is the guy the convinced the US Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs that cholesterol and saturated fat caused heart disease and influenced with his wonderful epidemiological data that the country should go low fat, brilliant idea or science experiment.
73% of the low fat and other processed food in a grocery store are UPF's, so not a lot of food without a nutrition label and a shiny package to promote the smart health claims approved by the USDA, AHA, and the ADA.
Here's an example. The American Diabetes Association just came out with an ad that said that an oatmeal cookie could be part of a healthy breakfast for children. 1 cookie has 270 calories, 33g's carbs. The ingredients are reduced fat peanut butter, unsweetened applesauce, Splenda, flax seed, salt, cinnamon, quick oats, vanilla protein powder, dried and reduced sugar cranberries, pumpkin seeds.
Here's the problem. Low fat peanut butter have corn syrups, sugars, molasses and corn starches normally added for texture to make it eatable and familiar. Unsweetened applesauce is basically sugar and fiber. Quick oats convert quickly into blood glucose which they also claim reduces cholesterol. The flax seed is for omega 3's but omega 3's in plant form are ALA's and not EPA or DHA which are the actual essential omega's. ALA is converted in the body to EPA but the conversion rate is very low and what ever was converted is then further converted to DHA, which normally is less that 1% and why most medical professionals will tell vegans to supplement because ALA really doesn't cut it. Basically useless and plastered over a full array of products to make people feel good without telling them the real reason they're doing it, and that's because of the natural fat they're asking people to consume less of, and replaced those fats with refined polyunsaturated seed oils that have created this pro inflammatory imbalance of our omega 6 to omega 3 ratio's that are totally out of control in the American population that is very pro inflammatory on a chronic level, a really slimy tactic that does not promote confidence in our Gov't. or the science they believe to be accurate. The best part is Splenda that contributes financially every year to the ADA is a sponsor of this little cookie promotion, wonderful lol. Later
https://diabetesfoodhub.org/recipes/breakfast-cookies.html
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »(snip)
Here's an example. The American Diabetes Association just came out with an ad that said that an oatmeal cookie could be part of a healthy breakfast for children. 1 cookie has 270 calories, 33g's carbs. The ingredients are reduced fat peanut butter, unsweetened applesauce, Splenda, flax seed, salt, cinnamon, quick oats, vanilla protein powder, dried and reduced sugar cranberries, pumpkin seeds.
(snip)
You said it all much better than I ever could have, but this example is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about.
Even people who listened to the so-called experts have been misled due to the faulty science from decades ago. Even when people are trying, they're still unknowingly doing the wrong thing, choosing the wrong foods that they've been told by authoritative sources are the 'right' choices.
It's no wonder people get frustrated when they're not getting results and give up trying.
The dietary advice that came from that faulty science is a mountain of sand that organizations have built their houses on. They are reluctant to admit fault, and of course there are so many monetary incentives to keep pushing bad advice, and to keep quashing/ignoring any advice to the contrary.
And as far as Keyes goes, thank you for pointing that out as his blue zone experiment was brought up to me in a different thread. He was horrific. He went on campaigns to push his agenda and ruin the careers of any scientists who presented data that conflicted with his. His whole identity was invested in it he got to the point at which he didn't care what any research said if it contradicted his..
0 -
Look at populations in countries. Asian populations have less obese people (although Western diet introduction is increasing it as of late) and they survived on carbs (rice and noodles) as their main source of diet. But in general they don't eat a lot mostly due to economics. And I would bet it's same same every else in the world where they don't earn a lot of money as well. Just eating less in general is what keeps weight down.MacLowCarbing wrote: »@cwolfman13 @AnnPT77
I don't completely disagree, the obesity epidemic was also largely caused by reduction in activity and a rise in the availability of processed foods. There has been a combination of factors. I was mainly focusing on the low-fat craze and how remnants of it still linger in many of the recommendations even though the data was faulty.
When I was young and the food pyramid came out it was drilled into us that we should make carbs the foundation of our diet and eat 6-11 servings per day. We were told eggs were in general bad for you and we should not eat more than 4 per week. We were told to eat margarine instead of butter, that cheap, processed seed oils were healthy, and we should lay off animal fats-- particularly beef.
There have been a lot of studies that have thrown all of those recommendations into question, and progress to make corrections and change dietary advice from the so-called experts has been slow (probably because it would require admitting fault). Hence, at this point, I continue to remain skeptical on the subject, and am open to learning and experimenting to see what works for my body.
So while they may have found a genetic mutation in the Inuit, I don't think it is evidence that not having that specific genetic mutation means a high fat/low carb/high protein diet should be avoided.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions