A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

likitisplit

The real arguments here would seem to either be between those who hold position (1) and the rest (but no one is position (1), right?) or between those who hold position (5) and the rest.

That's a good summation. I'm a (2), myself.

I'd be a 3.

lindsey1979

It's not about making excuses. It's about finding the most effective path for any given individual. You've done well for yourself. You should be proud. But there is no reason to denigrate others that may need to take a different path. It doesn't lessen your achievements.

You can climb the face of Half Dome. Or you can take the cables on the back side. Both get you to the top. But few are going to be able to climb the face whereas many more can take the cables. In the end, it's getting to the top that's important -- not how you get there.

It's not that I denigrate those who choose a different path. It's the ones that make claims that their whatever is superior to something else then give a bunch of bs answers and give the run around or the ones that always use something as an excuse, that are a waste of effort imo. Oh well.

So then why ask for my stats? Come on, you know you wanted to take a jab at my height or that I'm light or something. You obviously attempted the first time with the 5'5" and commenting on my dog. Yup he is a chihuahua, an awesome dog and our best friend. Make fun of him to all you want. Doesn't change who we are and what we are.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think you're very quick to denigrate people and jump on them for being lazy, making excuses, special snowflakes, etc. And, then you defend it because it's honest. That to me, for the most part is very unhelpful and very unnecessary and is more about stroking your ego than anything else. But, hey, that's just my perception.

If people want to be lazy, make excuses, call themselves snowflakes and then complain about not being able to lose weight then it's fair game. Can people have medical conditions they don't know about. Yes. Go get checked if you do, get it addressed, then put in the work. Don't sit around complaining.

You automatically want to lump everyone on the people with diseases column if they say they can't lose weight.

Not true at all. I usually start asking more questions first. I just want to see if there are other explanations other than they're crazy, liars, make excuses, etc. I don't find that sort of judgment to be helpful at all. One of the first things I suggest is accurate logging, since you really need to look at accurate intake as a starting point for almost everyone unless they're having other major symptoms.

You just seem to skip a lot of that in between possibility and jump to the name calling. And I think that's counterproductive and not very kind. One thing this world doesn't need is more unkindness.

And yet you made fun of his chihuahua, because that was productive and kind.

How is it making fun of a chihuahua to say it sounds like it's a bigger dog?

Aaron_K123

It's not about making excuses. It's about finding the most effective path for any given individual. You've done well for yourself. You should be proud. But there is no reason to denigrate others that may need to take a different path. It doesn't lessen your achievements.

You can climb the face of Half Dome. Or you can take the cables on the back side. Both get you to the top. But few are going to be able to climb the face whereas many more can take the cables. In the end, it's getting to the top that's important -- not how you get there.

It's not that I denigrate those who choose a different path. It's the ones that make claims that their whatever is superior to something else then give a bunch of bs answers and give the run around or the ones that always use something as an excuse, that are a waste of effort imo. Oh well.

So then why ask for my stats? Come on, you know you wanted to take a jab at my height or that I'm light or something. You obviously attempted the first time with the 5'5" and commenting on my dog. Yup he is a chihuahua, an awesome dog and our best friend. Make fun of him to all you want. Doesn't change who we are and what we are.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think you're very quick to denigrate people and jump on them for being lazy, making excuses, special snowflakes, etc. And, then you defend it because it's honest. That to me, for the most part is very unhelpful and very unnecessary and is more about stroking your ego than anything else. But, hey, that's just my perception.

If people want to be lazy, make excuses, call themselves snowflakes and then complain about not being able to lose weight then it's fair game. Can people have medical conditions they don't know about. Yes. Go get checked if you do, get it addressed, then put in the work. Don't sit around complaining.

You automatically want to lump everyone on the people with diseases column if they say they can't lose weight.

Not true at all. I usually start asking more questions first. I just want to see if there are other explanations other than they're crazy, liars, make excuses, etc. I don't find that sort of judgment to be helpful at all. One of the first things I suggest is accurate logging, since you really need to look at accurate intake as a starting point for almost everyone unless they're having other major symptoms.

You just seem to skip a lot of that in between possibility and jump to the name calling. And I think that's counterproductive and not very kind. One thing this world doesn't need is more unkindness.

But you gotta admit: It's easy to be judgmental when you're a hard-body, in a sea of fat people.

Remind me to put a post in the "Website Suggestion/Feedback" forum that My Fitness Pal should change its name to "Fat People Ocean".

LiminalAscendance

It's not about making excuses. It's about finding the most effective path for any given individual. You've done well for yourself. You should be proud. But there is no reason to denigrate others that may need to take a different path. It doesn't lessen your achievements.

You can climb the face of Half Dome. Or you can take the cables on the back side. Both get you to the top. But few are going to be able to climb the face whereas many more can take the cables. In the end, it's getting to the top that's important -- not how you get there.

It's not that I denigrate those who choose a different path. It's the ones that make claims that their whatever is superior to something else then give a bunch of bs answers and give the run around or the ones that always use something as an excuse, that are a waste of effort imo. Oh well.

So then why ask for my stats? Come on, you know you wanted to take a jab at my height or that I'm light or something. You obviously attempted the first time with the 5'5" and commenting on my dog. Yup he is a chihuahua, an awesome dog and our best friend. Make fun of him to all you want. Doesn't change who we are and what we are.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think you're very quick to denigrate people and jump on them for being lazy, making excuses, special snowflakes, etc. And, then you defend it because it's honest. That to me, for the most part is very unhelpful and very unnecessary and is more about stroking your ego than anything else. But, hey, that's just my perception.

If people want to be lazy, make excuses, call themselves snowflakes and then complain about not being able to lose weight then it's fair game. Can people have medical conditions they don't know about. Yes. Go get checked if you do, get it addressed, then put in the work. Don't sit around complaining.

You automatically want to lump everyone on the people with diseases column if they say they can't lose weight.

Not true at all. I usually start asking more questions first. I just want to see if there are other explanations other than they're crazy, liars, make excuses, etc. I don't find that sort of judgment to be helpful at all. One of the first things I suggest is accurate logging, since you really need to look at accurate intake as a starting point for almost everyone unless they're having other major symptoms.

You just seem to skip a lot of that in between possibility and jump to the name calling. And I think that's counterproductive and not very kind. One thing this world doesn't need is more unkindness.

But you gotta admit: It's easy to be judgmental when you're a hard-body, in a sea of fat people.

Remind me to put a post in the "Feedback and Suggestions" forum that My Fitness Pal should change its name to "Fat People Ocean".

Well, we know that won't work. People are way too sensitive. Just look at the recent thread where posters were complaining when individuals complimented them on losing weight!

When I was fat, I referred to myself that way.

Perhaps it was because I never felt trapped by it.

nsaglian

Not all of us believe! I have used a restricted carb diet to loose 70lbs (from 379 to 309) in approxiametly 6 months time. Yes this is anecdotal, and yes, one cannot believe everything on the internet! But looking at the actual study, and reading the scientific paper published, one can get good information

WinoGelato

It does make sense, because usually when you DO cut down carbs, you tend to eat fewer calories anyways.

I would modify this to "when many people cut down on carbs they tend to eat fewer calories anyway." Explains the results just as well as doesn't overgeneralize needlessly.

So as I see it there are at least 5 possible positions to stake out:

(1) The study is wrong, it's not possible that not counting calories could result in a loss or that there would be any difference between diets for people not counting.

(2) Not enough information to say if the study's results are meaningful or not, but if they are it's likely due to a difference in calories consumed.

(3) Not enough information to say if the study's results are meaningful or not, but if they are it's likely due to a difference in the calories consumed plus possibly some other factor such as insulin resistance within the atypical (primarily female and obese, certain ethnic groups disproportionately represented).

(4) The study's results aren't surprising because cutting carbs tends to result in cutting calories for at least some percentage of the population.

(5) The study's results aren't surprising because people just lose more weight, all else equal, on low carb, because eating sugar or carbs leads to fat storage, even in a deficit, or low carb unlocks the fat or some such.

As I see it (although this thread has gotten active), no one is taking the silly position (1). However, that is the position prettykitty attributed to MFP in the first post. A number of people have left open positions (2)-(4) as possibilities (I'm inclined toward a combination of (3) and (4) personally). Position (5) is, indeed, the position of some low carb advocates and also what some in general are taking from the coverage, although it is not a good reading of the study and certainly not what all people who favor a low carb diet for themselves claim.

The real arguments here would seem to either be between those who hold position (1) and the rest (but no one is position (1), right?) or between those who hold position (5) and the rest.

What happened to:
(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption) which does not give a very solid comparison. If the test group focused on fat was given a more restrictive fat level (<15%), I wonder what the results would be?

As it stands, it seems like this debate has turned into whether or not cutting carbs inherently results in cutting calories and whether or not that validates or invalidates the CICO debate about what is required for weight loss.

likitisplit

It's not about making excuses. It's about finding the most effective path for any given individual. You've done well for yourself. You should be proud. But there is no reason to denigrate others that may need to take a different path. It doesn't lessen your achievements.

You can climb the face of Half Dome. Or you can take the cables on the back side. Both get you to the top. But few are going to be able to climb the face whereas many more can take the cables. In the end, it's getting to the top that's important -- not how you get there.

It's not that I denigrate those who choose a different path. It's the ones that make claims that their whatever is superior to something else then give a bunch of bs answers and give the run around or the ones that always use something as an excuse, that are a waste of effort imo. Oh well.

So then why ask for my stats? Come on, you know you wanted to take a jab at my height or that I'm light or something. You obviously attempted the first time with the 5'5" and commenting on my dog. Yup he is a chihuahua, an awesome dog and our best friend. Make fun of him to all you want. Doesn't change who we are and what we are.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think you're very quick to denigrate people and jump on them for being lazy, making excuses, special snowflakes, etc. And, then you defend it because it's honest. That to me, for the most part is very unhelpful and very unnecessary and is more about stroking your ego than anything else. But, hey, that's just my perception.

If people want to be lazy, make excuses, call themselves snowflakes and then complain about not being able to lose weight then it's fair game. Can people have medical conditions they don't know about. Yes. Go get checked if you do, get it addressed, then put in the work. Don't sit around complaining.

You automatically want to lump everyone on the people with diseases column if they say they can't lose weight.

Not true at all. I usually start asking more questions first. I just want to see if there are other explanations other than they're crazy, liars, make excuses, etc. I don't find that sort of judgment to be helpful at all. One of the first things I suggest is accurate logging, since you really need to look at accurate intake as a starting point for almost everyone unless they're having other major symptoms.

You just seem to skip a lot of that in between possibility and jump to the name calling. And I think that's counterproductive and not very kind. One thing this world doesn't need is more unkindness.

And yet you made fun of his chihuahua, because that was productive and kind.

How is it making fun of a chihuahua to say it sounds like it's a bigger dog?

Your attempt to be clever in the deflecting of the insult fails.

You say I'm 5'5"
The peanut gallery says "He sounded much bigger"
To reply with the chihuahua comment.

Basically, as we all know chihuahuas are notorious for barking at people. Trying to intimidate others with their napoleon complex. So don't try and say that wasn't where you were headed with that comment. Trying to, trying, to insult my dog and myself. But it doesn't work because I'm so arrogant and narcissistic that your opinion of me personally is worthless. Insignificant. And he's to much of a a jerk to care what you think. He's busy chewing his bone.

I was going to respond to that comment, but I thought it was better to allow the stupidity to shine all on it's own.

LiminalAscendance

It does make sense, because usually when you DO cut down carbs, you tend to eat fewer calories anyways.

I would modify this to "when many people cut down on carbs they tend to eat fewer calories anyway." Explains the results just as well as doesn't overgeneralize needlessly.

So as I see it there are at least 5 possible positions to stake out:

(1) The study is wrong, it's not possible that not counting calories could result in a loss or that there would be any difference between diets for people not counting.

(2) Not enough information to say if the study's results are meaningful or not, but if they are it's likely due to a difference in calories consumed.

(3) Not enough information to say if the study's results are meaningful or not, but if they are it's likely due to a difference in the calories consumed plus possibly some other factor such as insulin resistance within the atypical (primarily female and obese, certain ethnic groups disproportionately represented).

(4) The study's results aren't surprising because cutting carbs tends to result in cutting calories for at least some percentage of the population.

(5) The study's results aren't surprising because people just lose more weight, all else equal, on low carb, because eating sugar or carbs leads to fat storage, even in a deficit, or low carb unlocks the fat or some such.

As I see it (although this thread has gotten active), no one is taking the silly position (1). However, that is the position prettykitty attributed to MFP in the first post. A number of people have left open positions (2)-(4) as possibilities (I'm inclined toward a combination of (3) and (4) personally). Position (5) is, indeed, the position of some low carb advocates and also what some in general are taking from the coverage, although it is not a good reading of the study and certainly not what all people who favor a low carb diet for themselves claim.

The real arguments here would seem to either be between those who hold position (1) and the rest (but no one is position (1), right?) or between those who hold position (5) and the rest.

What happened to:
(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption) which does not give a very solid comparison. If the test group focused on fat was given a more restrictive fat level (<15%), I wonder what the results would be?

As it stands, it seems like this debate has turned into whether or not cutting carbs inherently results in cutting calories and whether or not that validates or invalidates the CICO debate about what is required for weight loss.

That's too much thinking. You just made my head hurt.

Let's go back to talking about chihuahuas.

Or at least post a kitty gif.

_Terrapin_

Author of Never Shower in Thunderstorms excerpt:

"Most scientists believe that the aphrodisiac qualities of chocolate, if any, can be ascribed to three or four chemicals. One, tryptophan, is a building block of serotonin, the brain chemical that creates feelings of pleasure, helps soothe pain, and plays a role in sexual arousal. Another is theobromine, a chemical stimulant that is similar to caffeine but has a great ability to elevate mood. This is the chemical that can make a Snickers bar lethal to dogs and horses (they metabolize theobromine more slowly than do humans)."

Author, same as the article the OP quoted.

Did someone mention Snickers earlier?

likitisplit

It's not about making excuses. It's about finding the most effective path for any given individual. You've done well for yourself. You should be proud. But there is no reason to denigrate others that may need to take a different path. It doesn't lessen your achievements.

You can climb the face of Half Dome. Or you can take the cables on the back side. Both get you to the top. But few are going to be able to climb the face whereas many more can take the cables. In the end, it's getting to the top that's important -- not how you get there.

It's not that I denigrate those who choose a different path. It's the ones that make claims that their whatever is superior to something else then give a bunch of bs answers and give the run around or the ones that always use something as an excuse, that are a waste of effort imo. Oh well.

So then why ask for my stats? Come on, you know you wanted to take a jab at my height or that I'm light or something. You obviously attempted the first time with the 5'5" and commenting on my dog. Yup he is a chihuahua, an awesome dog and our best friend. Make fun of him to all you want. Doesn't change who we are and what we are.

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. I think you're very quick to denigrate people and jump on them for being lazy, making excuses, special snowflakes, etc. And, then you defend it because it's honest. That to me, for the most part is very unhelpful and very unnecessary and is more about stroking your ego than anything else. But, hey, that's just my perception.

If people want to be lazy, make excuses, call themselves snowflakes and then complain about not being able to lose weight then it's fair game. Can people have medical conditions they don't know about. Yes. Go get checked if you do, get it addressed, then put in the work. Don't sit around complaining.

You automatically want to lump everyone on the people with diseases column if they say they can't lose weight.

Not true at all. I usually start asking more questions first. I just want to see if there are other explanations other than they're crazy, liars, make excuses, etc. I don't find that sort of judgment to be helpful at all. One of the first things I suggest is accurate logging, since you really need to look at accurate intake as a starting point for almost everyone unless they're having other major symptoms.

You just seem to skip a lot of that in between possibility and jump to the name calling. And I think that's counterproductive and not very kind. One thing this world doesn't need is more unkindness.

But you gotta admit: It's easy to be judgmental when you're a hard-body, in a sea of fat people.

Remind me to put a post in the "Feedback and Suggestions" forum that My Fitness Pal should change its name to "Fat People Ocean".

Well, we know that won't work. People are way too sensitive. Just look at the recent thread where posters were complaining when individuals complimented them on losing weight!

When I was fat, I referred to myself that way.

Perhaps it was because I never felt trapped by it.

I felt trapped by it AND I referred to myself as fat.

It's funny though - MFP sometimes seems to be an oasis of fit people in a world that's steadily getting bigger.

_Terrapin_

And here we go:

Mr_Knight

(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption...

Keeping in mind that the baseline fat consumption was only 35%, while the baseline carb consumption was over 200g/day. So comparing a (self-reported) 80%+ cut in carbs vs a 15% cut in fat. Adjusted for caloric density, the study asked for nearly 3x the calorie cut from the LC group relative to the LF group.

Curiously, looked at from that perspective, the reported weight losses suggest the LC group was less able to meet the macro requirements than was the LF group.

lindsey1979

And yet you made fun of his chihuahua, because that was productive and kind.

How is it making fun of a chihuahua to say it sounds like it's a bigger dog?

Your attempt to be clever in the deflecting of the insult fails.

You say I'm 5'5"
The peanut gallery says "He sounded much bigger"
To reply with the chihuahua comment.

Basically, as we all know chihuahuas are notorious for barking at people. Trying to intimidate others with their napoleon complex. So don't try and say that wasn't where you were headed with that comment. Trying to, trying, to insult my dog and myself. But it doesn't work because I'm so arrogant and narcissistic that your opinion of me personally is worthless. Insignificant. And he's to much of a a jerk to care what you think. He's busy chewing his bone.

I was going to respond to that comment, but I thought it was better to allow the stupidity to shine all on it's own.

Once again, where is the insult? Is it because you're short? I didn't think you had a short man's complex, but perhaps you do. You could learn more from your dog.

_Terrapin_

Let me put it this way. If you had to give advice about weight loss in one single sentence and have it apply to the broadest audience possible would that sentence contain the word "carbs"?

Probably not, but not everything has to fit into a "one sentence summary" in order to be meaningful. To me, this all just boils down to the notion that satiation can play a meaningful role in weight loss, and avoiding many sources of carbohydrates can make for a more satiating diet overall for many people. It's easy to talk weight loss in terms of specific calories and macros and with an accurate food log in hand, but I think people on here all too often forget that it's not "normal" to weigh and log everything you eat. Most people simply do not do this and for the people that aren't tracking everything, avoiding certain sources of carbohydrates in a meal may allow them to still feel satiated while consuming fewer calories (and to be fair, there are some forms of carbohydrates that are very satiating as well). It's far from an exact science but most people do not live their life as a science experiment and it can still be useful for some people.

This is a calorie counting website....

Quite honestly, if I was going to advise somebody about how to lose weight without counting calories, I'd have them focus on eating higher fiber foods along with sufficient protein.

Also good advice, although I'm not sure what this being a calorie counting website has to do with anything. Just because this is a calorie counting website doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people in this world do not count their calories. There are tons of labels/rules of thumb that aren't really applicable to people that track every calorie and every nutrient the consume, but that doesn't mean those labels/rules of thumb aren't at least somewhat useful to the general populace.

We aren't discussing this with the general populace. We are discussing this with the population of a calorie-counting website.

I might be discussing it with those people, but that doesn't mean I'm talking solely about those people. When I discuss a Supreme Court decision with another attorney, I'm not talking only about how that case affects attorneys - I'm talking about the overall effect of the decision. The study in question wasn't specific to a calorie counting website - in fact, they had people specifically not tracking their caloric intake on a daily basis but instead focusing on rules of thumb like 40g carbs max or 30% calories from fat. It's no big surprise that the results of the study aren't very meaningful for people that track every calorie they eat, and as a result it's not particularly interesting to discuss it only in the context of those people. In short, whatever meaningful information there is that can be gleaned from that study is more related to the population at large than the people using this site to journal their food.

"with another attorney" so you are an attorney, or a clerk, or a para-legal?!?

parkscs

Let me put it this way. If you had to give advice about weight loss in one single sentence and have it apply to the broadest audience possible would that sentence contain the word "carbs"?

Probably not, but not everything has to fit into a "one sentence summary" in order to be meaningful. To me, this all just boils down to the notion that satiation can play a meaningful role in weight loss, and avoiding many sources of carbohydrates can make for a more satiating diet overall for many people. It's easy to talk weight loss in terms of specific calories and macros and with an accurate food log in hand, but I think people on here all too often forget that it's not "normal" to weigh and log everything you eat. Most people simply do not do this and for the people that aren't tracking everything, avoiding certain sources of carbohydrates in a meal may allow them to still feel satiated while consuming fewer calories (and to be fair, there are some forms of carbohydrates that are very satiating as well). It's far from an exact science but most people do not live their life as a science experiment and it can still be useful for some people.

This is a calorie counting website....

Quite honestly, if I was going to advise somebody about how to lose weight without counting calories, I'd have them focus on eating higher fiber foods along with sufficient protein.

Also good advice, although I'm not sure what this being a calorie counting website has to do with anything. Just because this is a calorie counting website doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of people in this world do not count their calories. There are tons of labels/rules of thumb that aren't really applicable to people that track every calorie and every nutrient the consume, but that doesn't mean those labels/rules of thumb aren't at least somewhat useful to the general populace.

We aren't discussing this with the general populace. We are discussing this with the population of a calorie-counting website.

I might be discussing it with those people, but that doesn't mean I'm talking solely about those people. When I discuss a Supreme Court decision with another attorney, I'm not talking only about how that case affects attorneys - I'm talking about the overall effect of the decision. The study in question wasn't specific to a calorie counting website - in fact, they had people specifically not tracking their caloric intake on a daily basis but instead focusing on rules of thumb like 40g carbs max or 30% calories from fat. It's no big surprise that the results of the study aren't very meaningful for people that track every calorie they eat, and as a result it's not particularly interesting to discuss it only in the context of those people. In short, whatever meaningful information there is that can be gleaned from that study is more related to the population at large than the people using this site to journal their food.

"with another attorney" so you are an attorney, or a clerk, or a para-legal?!?

Courthouse janitor. What's your point?

Catter_05

I wish I would have avoided this thread!
First of all, I'm pretty new here, but I have seen a lot of "There's no such thing as a special snowflake. You are not counting right, either your calories in or your calories burnt are wrong." Then, someone brings up a case where a body might use nutrients differently, and they get attitude for bringing it up. It reads like this to me, "there's no such thing as a special snowflake." "But what about A, B, Or C? ". "Stop bringing up special snowflakes!"... "There's no such thing as a special snowflake."

What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way? That's what everyone keeps asking for, proof, examples, etc. My Drs. have me on a low carb diet, for oh no, insulin resistance! However, I don't think that it is the only answer. It is just what works for me and my body. I exercise too. In fact changing my diet has helped me with my migraines which were happening frequently. (3-4 times a week). This has allowed me to start running. So, now, I've been able to add more exercise to my routine. And yes I also count calories, but it's more to make sure I'm eating enough. I don't feel anywhere near as hungry as I used to feel.
So, to answer another question, my one sentence advice would be, "Find a way to lose weight that works for your body's needs".

If you feel better with carbs, eat them. If not, don't. I'm not sure at all why low carb diets seem to anger so many people. I got some rude responses on another thread. It's sort of discouraging when the life choices you make are constantly being denigrated. And then you get insulted to top it off.

What it boils down to,to me, is that losing weight is hard work, no matter what. Does it matter if I lose the weight because my body processes sugar and carbs differently so I cut them down? Or if I cut them down to maintain a caloric deficit? Or if I lose the weight by just maintaining a caloric deficit? One person's experience does not negate another person's.

LiminalAscendance

I wish I would have avoided this thread!
First of all, I'm pretty new here, but I have seen a lot of "There's no such thing as a special snowflake. You are not counting right, either your calories in or your calories burnt are wrong." Then, someone brings up a case where a body might use nutrients differently, and they get attitude for bringing it up. It reads like this to me, "there's no such thing as a special snowflake." "But what about A, B, Or C? ". "Stop bringing up special snowflakes!"... "There's no such thing as a special snowflake."

What is wrong with offering proof that not everyone's body works the same way? That's what everyone keeps asking for, proof, examples, etc. My Drs. have me on a low carb diet, for oh no, insulin resistance! However, I don't think that it is the only answer. It is just what works for me and my body. I exercise too. In fact changing my diet has helped me with my migraines which were happening frequently. (3-4 times a week). This has allowed me to start running. So, now, I've been able to add more exercise to my routine. And yes I also count calories, but it's more to make sure I'm eating enough. I don't feel anywhere near as hungry as I used to feel.
So, to answer another question, my one sentence advice would be, "Find a way to lose weight that works for your body's needs".

If you feel better with carbs, eat them. If not, don't. I'm not sure at all why low carb diets seem to anger so many people. I got some rude responses on another thread. It's sort of discouraging when the life choices you make are constantly being denigrated. And then you get insulted to top it off.

What it boils down to,to me, is that losing weight is hard work, no matter what. Does it matter if I lose the weight because my body processes sugar and carbs differently so I cut them down? Or if I cut them down to maintain a caloric deficit? Or if I lose the weight by just maintaining a caloric deficit? One person's experience does not negate another person's.

These forums are for entertainment purposes only.

Don't take it personally.

_Terrapin_

(6) One test group was given specific, fairly restrictive guidelines to follow (eat <40g carbs/day) while the other test group was given more general, less restrictive guidelines (restrict fat to <30% of your total consumption...

Keeping in mind that the baseline fat consumption was only 35%, while the baseline carb consumption was over 200g/day. So comparing a (self-reported) 80%+ cut in carbs vs a 15% cut in fat. Adjusted for caloric density, the study asked for nearly 3x the calorie cut from the LC group relative to the LF group.

Curiously, looked at from that perspective, the reported weight losses suggest the LC group was less able to meet the macro requirements than was the LF group.

Thank you for this; I went back and googled the SWD or SAD and came up with a similar conclusion. But, if folks want to drop a poopload of weight quickly(2nd thread in a day and we have at least one person proclaiming their rapid weight loss) the beat goes on. I stopped being surprised at people when they say how quickly they lost weight only to see them a couple years later even heavier then before. Folks tend to forget it took them many years to add the weight on, and for some they just want a quick fix.