Best macros for weight loss
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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
Of course eating less keeps weight down. Did I say otherwise? You're starting to confuse me, you keep going off on other tangents and miss my points entirely.
I think you're assuming I'm trying to rid the world of carb-eaters. I can assure you, that is not what I ever said or even implied.
What have I said in a nutshell:
- carbs are not good for everyone, depending on the person.
- if carbs give you trouble, you can cut down on them, or cut out things like grains and sugar entirely.
- since things like grains and sugar aren't necessary, and carbs are not a required macro, you can cut them out if you feel it would be beneficial to you; you won't be missing anything nutritionally.
- some people who go very low carb find fats satiating, and find this curbs cravings and hunger.
- Fat has been wrongly villainized in the American diet, you don't have to fear eating fat in your diet.
- Faulty data has played a role in the American obesity epidemic.
- dietary recommendations from what many people consider authoritative sources have been based on a lot of faulty data, and corrections or even allowing discussions about it have been slow to come.
- I don't think you have to be Inuit to find a low-carb/high-fat diet beneficial.
Now, where in all this are you seeing anything that implies people can't eat carbs and be thin, or can't lose weight on carbs, or that there are no other causes of obesity?
I think that because I'm not 100% flying with your preferred narrative, you're assuming I'm 100% against it. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying; but please stop reading into it.
2 -
Just eating less in general is what keeps weight down.
Sounds pretty darn simple and easy. Eating less and moving more works for a majority of people, but since that isn't happening for a considerable percentage of the Western population, despite their most diligent efforts, obesity and T2D continues to rise. You appear to continue to make the case for eating things like rice and noodles (carbs) for everyone despite the long term metabolic damage it causes in those with insulin problems. Why?
I don't think anyone has suggested the a low carb/high fat meal plan is for everyone. We're all different. Different macros affect each of us in different ways. The right mix of macros is the one that makes eating less possible in the first place. The best plan, IMO, is to find what works for you while keeping in mind that meal plan/macro mix might not be the optimal one for someone else.
0 -
Just eating less in general is what keeps weight down.
Sounds pretty darn simple and easy. Eating less and moving more works for a majority of people, but since that isn't happening for a considerable percentage of the Western population, despite their most diligent efforts, obesity and T2D continues to rise. You appear to continue to make the case for eating things like rice and noodles (carbs) for everyone despite the long term metabolic damage it causes in those with insulin problems. Why?
I don't think anyone has suggested the a low carb/high fat meal plan is for everyone. We're all different. Different macros affect each of us in different ways. The right mix of macros is the one that makes eating less possible in the first place. The best plan, IMO, is to find what works for you while keeping in mind that meal plan/macro mix might not be the optimal one for someone else.
That's not my read on what he's been saying about rice, etc. It's like recommending peanuts. It should be understood that the recommendation does not apply to someone who has a peanut allergy. If someone has a medical reason to avoid carbs, they should understand that a recommendation of carbs is for the general population, not them.
Rice is a food staple for more than 3.5 billion people around the world.
4 -
Niner continually uses Asian countries and rice consumption as to why they aren't necessarily a problem, which is true for some societies and some people and of course that's changing now because China has more people that have diabetes per capita than the USA and India is a leader for heart disease and diabetes. Millions of people eat rice in the USA everyday that are not overweight and don't have to count calories so they don't gain weight. There's also a large minority of people in the US that aren't overweigh and have diabetes as well. It's not about the rice and pasta. Metabolic diseases like diabetes and obesity can be treated very successfully with a low carb/keto diets which treats blood sugar, feel more satiated and lose weight easier for those people, not rocket science.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »Niner continually uses Asian countries and rice consumption as to why they aren't necessarily a problem, which is true for some societies and some people and of course that's changing now because China has more people that have diabetes per capita than the USA and India is a leader for heart disease and diabetes. Millions of people eat rice in the USA everyday that are not overweight and don't have to count calories so they don't gain weight. There's also a large minority of people in the US that aren't overweigh and have diabetes as well. It's not about the rice and pasta. Metabolic diseases like diabetes and obesity can be treated very successfully with a low carb/keto diets which treats blood sugar, feel more satiated and lose weight easier for those people, not rocket science.
I think what it comes down to really is everyone should eat in whatever way works for them. I think the problems tend to arise when one or the other claims what's "best" for someone else's body, or insists someone is eating in an unhealthy/problematic way if they eat differently from them. Us vs. Them mentality never leads to anywhere good. If someone chooses to go carnivore... or fruitarian, or starchivore, or, I don't know... eat nothing but partially boiled eggs... well, I may disagree with their choice, but I can't really tell them they're wrong for doing so.0 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Niner continually uses Asian countries and rice consumption as to why they aren't necessarily a problem, which is true for some societies and some people and of course that's changing now because China has more people that have diabetes per capita than the USA and India is a leader for heart disease and diabetes. Millions of people eat rice in the USA everyday that are not overweight and don't have to count calories so they don't gain weight. There's also a large minority of people in the US that aren't overweigh and have diabetes as well. It's not about the rice and pasta. Metabolic diseases like diabetes and obesity can be treated very successfully with a low carb/keto diets which treats blood sugar, feel more satiated and lose weight easier for those people, not rocket science.
I think what it comes down to really is everyone should eat in whatever way works for them. I think the problems tend to arise when one or the other claims what's "best" for someone else's body, or insists someone is eating in an unhealthy/problematic way if they eat differently from them. Us vs. Them mentality never leads to anywhere good. If someone chooses to go carnivore... or fruitarian, or starchivore, or, I don't know... eat nothing but partially boiled eggs... well, I may disagree with their choice, but I can't really tell them they're wrong for doing so.
Well, this is a calorie counting site, so it's about calories and easy to understand that it's all about the calorie and that pretty much all diets, especially ones that reduce/remove carbs are fad diets and they all work the same by just consuming fewer calories. It's the repeated mantra here, and for a bonus, you can eat donuts. Yeah, new people get excited when something works for them and probably a little too much, but they get taught soon enough though, generally immediately.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Just eating less in general is what keeps weight down.
Sounds pretty darn simple and easy. Eating less and moving more works for a majority of people, but since that isn't happening for a considerable percentage of the Western population, despite their most diligent efforts, obesity and T2D continues to rise. You appear to continue to make the case for eating things like rice and noodles (carbs) for everyone despite the long term metabolic damage it causes in those with insulin problems. Why?
I don't think anyone has suggested the a low carb/high fat meal plan is for everyone. We're all different. Different macros affect each of us in different ways. The right mix of macros is the one that makes eating less possible in the first place. The best plan, IMO, is to find what works for you while keeping in mind that meal plan/macro mix might not be the optimal one for someone else.
That's not my read on what he's been saying about rice, etc. It's like recommending peanuts. It should be understood that the recommendation does not apply to someone who has a peanut allergy. If someone has a medical reason to avoid carbs, they should understand that a recommendation of carbs is for the general population, not them.
Rice is a food staple for more than 3.5 billion people around the world.
IMO, it is misleading (in a thread about, "Best Macros for Weight Loss") to point out that billions of people (with less obesity) survive on carbs as the main source of macros in their diet. To me, that is saying the same thing as eating lots of grainy carbs are good for everyone. That if it works for billions, it will work for everyone. Niner's added advice to "just eat less in general" if you want to keep weight down is equally counterproductive for those who come to MFP because they struggle to control calorie intake.
0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Just eating less in general is what keeps weight down.
Sounds pretty darn simple and easy. Eating less and moving more works for a majority of people, but since that isn't happening for a considerable percentage of the Western population, despite their most diligent efforts, obesity and T2D continues to rise. You appear to continue to make the case for eating things like rice and noodles (carbs) for everyone despite the long term metabolic damage it causes in those with insulin problems. Why?
I don't think anyone has suggested the a low carb/high fat meal plan is for everyone. We're all different. Different macros affect each of us in different ways. The right mix of macros is the one that makes eating less possible in the first place. The best plan, IMO, is to find what works for you while keeping in mind that meal plan/macro mix might not be the optimal one for someone else.
That's not my read on what he's been saying about rice, etc. It's like recommending peanuts. It should be understood that the recommendation does not apply to someone who has a peanut allergy. If someone has a medical reason to avoid carbs, they should understand that a recommendation of carbs is for the general population, not them.
Rice is a food staple for more than 3.5 billion people around the world.
IMO, it is misleading (in a thread about, "Best Macros for Weight Loss") to point out that billions of people (with less obesity) survive on carbs as the main source of macros in their diet. To me, that is saying the same thing as eating lots of grainy carbs are good for everyone. That if it works for billions, it will work for everyone. Niner's added advice to "just eat less in general" if you want to keep weight down is equally counterproductive for those who come to MFP because they struggle to control calorie intake.
It's not misleading. It's his answer to the question. And he's not wrong in what he's saying. All societies had their main carbohydrate source they lived off of. Or maybe you've never heard about the great potato famine, where 1 million Irish people died because their potato crops failed. Not because all their cows or sheep or chickens died. Because their potatos died. 1 million people.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Just eating less in general is what keeps weight down.
Sounds pretty darn simple and easy. Eating less and moving more works for a majority of people, but since that isn't happening for a considerable percentage of the Western population, despite their most diligent efforts, obesity and T2D continues to rise. You appear to continue to make the case for eating things like rice and noodles (carbs) for everyone despite the long term metabolic damage it causes in those with insulin problems. Why?
I don't think anyone has suggested the a low carb/high fat meal plan is for everyone. We're all different. Different macros affect each of us in different ways. The right mix of macros is the one that makes eating less possible in the first place. The best plan, IMO, is to find what works for you while keeping in mind that meal plan/macro mix might not be the optimal one for someone else.
That's not my read on what he's been saying about rice, etc. It's like recommending peanuts. It should be understood that the recommendation does not apply to someone who has a peanut allergy. If someone has a medical reason to avoid carbs, they should understand that a recommendation of carbs is for the general population, not them.
Rice is a food staple for more than 3.5 billion people around the world.
IMO, it is misleading (in a thread about, "Best Macros for Weight Loss") to point out that billions of people (with less obesity) survive on carbs as the main source of macros in their diet. To me, that is saying the same thing as eating lots of grainy carbs are good for everyone. That if it works for billions, it will work for everyone. Niner's added advice to "just eat less in general" if you want to keep weight down is equally counterproductive for those who come to MFP because they struggle to control calorie intake.
Everyone can have an opinion on what works. Cultures that eat rice, pasta, and potatoes do so because protein costs money and not everyone can afford a high protein diet. Some, like Italy, eat that way because it's their culture and habit because coming out of WWII food was scarse.
The Mediterranean Diet has won UNESCO status---there are reasons. The Blue zones are healthier--there are reasons.
I, personally, travel between Minnesota (my home in the US) and Italy (where I've lived for 38 years). Frankly, the difference in the food culture is evident. Even home cooking in the US is rich. The volume of food is much more than I'm now used to. I try to cook for myself when visiting, or order small portions, or take most home to heat up the next day.
People can eat whatever, however, and whenever they want. Anyone who eats low carb per doctor's orders should be supported.1 -
The "Mediterranean Diet" and the "Standard American Diet" have virtually the same macro percentage breakdown.
According to the WHO, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Spain have the highest rates of childhood obesity, which also happen to be on the Mediterranean Sea.
Dan Buettner from "Blue Zone" fame is also on a tour promoting his new book, so that's been in the news more lately and how fabulous it is when people adapt the blue zone diet in the big apple (NYC) as an example and are getting healthier. More fruits and vegetables is covering a lot of territory lately and it can be found everywhere. Somehow I'm thinking he's not promoting Casu marzu a maggot infested sheep's cheese from Sardinia.
https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/332526/Eurohealth-25-1-7-10-eng.pdf0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions