A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Options
Replies
-
Who's winning ?
I really need to know so I can change my diet to the most popular one. Lmao0 -
Lol is that why you sent me a friend request a few months back?
You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trollingEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
Eric, I log everything that goes into my mouth. I don't have a calorie budget. I have a carb budget. I'm not trolling so quit looking for ****. You always seem to deny what others have found successful. You are the ****ing troll.0 -
There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
I don't think it is coincidence either, I just think you have your cause and effect relationship backwards.0 -
If you don't count calories, how do you know you are eating 4,000 calories a day? Or, is that just a very rough estimate because you are eating "as much as you want'" and it feels like an awful lot of food? Well, my guess is that estimation is over by about a thousand or so.Everyone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
If you are maintaining your weight eating whatever your true calorie intake is, then that's a good thing. You've found your balance and the type of dietary plan that works for you. Perhaps eating less carbs helps you feel satiated, or provides some other healthy benefit, but there is nothing special with low carb as far as calories in/calories out goes.
Low carb is the right plan for the person who chooses it, but it's not the right dietary plan for everyone. There is nothing magical in low carb, except for the magic a person gives it.
And, this comes from someone who believes in choosing your own dietary plan with the caveat that no diet is going to work if you eat over your calorie allowance, and any diet will work if you eat less than your calorie allowance.0 -
It's much more detailed than that. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different chemical reactions involved. Far more than simply burning by fire would be.
Look at the difference between the mere binding of fructose and glucose in both sucrose and HFCS. The fructose are unbound in HFCS whereas they are bound to glucose in sucrose. So, it actually takes on more step to unbind them in sucrose -- one of the reasons some posit that HFCS has a different reaction on weight gain in the body (though the mechanism is far from understood). And that's a difference in a extremely similar molecule. You talk about different molecules in the same macro and there is great variation, even more so between different macros.
Yeah...I know....biochemist here. You are just waving the flag of "complicated" to say that anything is possible and therefore your version of reality is correct. That is not hard to do but it also holds no value or informational content. Saying to someone "it is to complicated to understand, so here is exactly how it works" is clearly flawed.
Fact is though that although the actual network of metabolic interactions is very complex the general process is quite simple. Hydrocarbons are converted to water and carbon dioxide yielding energy in the form of chemical bonds which can be used to perform work.
Careful about advertising your credentials here. People go nuts about it (or at least did when I did).
I'm not trying to obscure with complexity, but I think it's important to acknowledge it's existence -- especially because sometimes it becomes a very important factor (like with insulin resistance). The fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of US adults are obese or overweight. There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
And, I know it's comforting to think that everything is within our control, but sometimes it's not. Or that control is hidden or obscured by other interests (like adding things to certain foods that increase appetite or decrease satiety so that people will buy/eat more so that some companies will make more money). Getting to those underlying issues -- whether medical or otherwise -- is important. Dismissing it all as pretty much the same is also a disservice.
Yeah, "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy; besides, Internet credentials are typically worth the time it takes to type them out.
Now, if you provided something verifiable, but no one seems to want to do that...
<eyeroll> I am waiting with baited breath for the explanation as to how mentioning your credentials is automatically an appeal to authority fallacy. I mentioned my training simply to state to the person with whom I was conversing that there was no reason to get long winded about biochemistry as I was fairly familiar with it already. I did not use the mention of that to then make some claim that you were supposed to believe simply due to my credential...which would be the fallacy.0 -
Gee, I'm in to watch. :bigsmile:Who's winning ?
I really need to know so I can change my diet to the most popular one. Lmao
0 -
The cause of PCOS is not understood. There are many different theories, some of which are diet, hormonal imbalance, genetics, environmental, the list goes on and on. But saying it is caused by obesity doesn't make sense because so many people with PCOS are outside of that parameter. I have never been obese and yet I am insulin resistant and have PCOS.
One theory has to do with the body producing too much testosterone. (My endocrinologist believes it to be genetically caused overproduction of testosterone).
A low carb diet is shown to reduce the level of testosterone produced by PCOS women. I am not going to site studies unless someone is interested, however there are a plethora of studies showing this relationship. The decrease in testosterone increases insulin sensitivity. I'm sure there is much more to it than that, but in a nutshell that is why it works. For some reason it all works differently for men. There doesn't seem to be as much research, but what I did find out is that low carb still increases insulin sensitivity but by increasing testosterone production. (At least that's how I understood it. I'm used to psychological or educational studies! Not hormonal studies.)0 -
It's much more detailed than that. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different chemical reactions involved. Far more than simply burning by fire would be.
Look at the difference between the mere binding of fructose and glucose in both sucrose and HFCS. The fructose are unbound in HFCS whereas they are bound to glucose in sucrose. So, it actually takes on more step to unbind them in sucrose -- one of the reasons some posit that HFCS has a different reaction on weight gain in the body (though the mechanism is far from understood). And that's a difference in a extremely similar molecule. You talk about different molecules in the same macro and there is great variation, even more so between different macros.
Yeah...I know....biochemist here. You are just waving the flag of "complicated" to say that anything is possible and therefore your version of reality is correct. That is not hard to do but it also holds no value or informational content. Saying to someone "it is to complicated to understand, so here is exactly how it works" is clearly flawed.
Fact is though that although the actual network of metabolic interactions is very complex the general process is quite simple. Hydrocarbons are converted to water and carbon dioxide yielding energy in the form of chemical bonds which can be used to perform work.
Careful about advertising your credentials here. People go nuts about it (or at least did when I did).
I'm not trying to obscure with complexity, but I think it's important to acknowledge it's existence -- especially because sometimes it becomes a very important factor (like with insulin resistance). The fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of US adults are obese or overweight. There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
And, I know it's comforting to think that everything is within our control, but sometimes it's not. Or that control is hidden or obscured by other interests (like adding things to certain foods that increase appetite or decrease satiety so that people will buy/eat more so that some companies will make more money). Getting to those underlying issues -- whether medical or otherwise -- is important. Dismissing it all as pretty much the same is also a disservice.
Yeah, "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy; besides, Internet credentials are typically worth the time it takes to type them out.
Now, if you provided something verifiable, but no one seems to want to do that...
<eyeroll> I am waiting with baited breath for the explanation as to how mentioning your credentials is automatically an appeal to authority fallacy. I mentioned my training simply to state to the person with whom I was conversing that there was no reason to get long winded about biochemistry as I was fairly familiar with it already. I did not use the mention of that to then make some claim that you were supposed to believe simply due to my credential...which would be the fallacy.
I wasn't referring to you (the posters in this forum appear to have a particular problem with identifying the target of a comment...apparently, quoting the source isn't sufficient). Perhaps you are hyper-sensitive, due to your own credential slinging.
And yes, I know where the fallacy lies. Can you give me a plausible reason to mention one's "credentials" unbidden, unless it is to imply an expertise in the subject at hand?
ETA - Actually, I think I was referring to you, albeit indirectly from the comment from another poster. So, I can understand your outrage.0 -
It's much more detailed than that. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of different chemical reactions involved. Far more than simply burning by fire would be.
Look at the difference between the mere binding of fructose and glucose in both sucrose and HFCS. The fructose are unbound in HFCS whereas they are bound to glucose in sucrose. So, it actually takes on more step to unbind them in sucrose -- one of the reasons some posit that HFCS has a different reaction on weight gain in the body (though the mechanism is far from understood). And that's a difference in a extremely similar molecule. You talk about different molecules in the same macro and there is great variation, even more so between different macros.
Yeah...I know....biochemist here. You are just waving the flag of "complicated" to say that anything is possible and therefore your version of reality is correct. That is not hard to do but it also holds no value or informational content. Saying to someone "it is to complicated to understand, so here is exactly how it works" is clearly flawed.
Fact is though that although the actual network of metabolic interactions is very complex the general process is quite simple. Hydrocarbons are converted to water and carbon dioxide yielding energy in the form of chemical bonds which can be used to perform work.
Careful about advertising your credentials here. People go nuts about it (or at least did when I did).
I'm not trying to obscure with complexity, but I think it's important to acknowledge it's existence -- especially because sometimes it becomes a very important factor (like with insulin resistance). The fact of the matter is that a huge proportion of US adults are obese or overweight. There is also a significant portion of US adults that have insulin resistance. I have a hard time thinking that's mere coincidence.
And, I know it's comforting to think that everything is within our control, but sometimes it's not. Or that control is hidden or obscured by other interests (like adding things to certain foods that increase appetite or decrease satiety so that people will buy/eat more so that some companies will make more money). Getting to those underlying issues -- whether medical or otherwise -- is important. Dismissing it all as pretty much the same is also a disservice.
Yeah, "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy; besides, Internet credentials are typically worth the time it takes to type them out.
Now, if you provided something verifiable, but no one seems to want to do that...
<eyeroll> I am waiting with baited breath for the explanation as to how mentioning your credentials is automatically an appeal to authority fallacy. I mentioned my training simply to state to the person with whom I was conversing that there was no reason to get long winded about biochemistry as I was fairly familiar with it already. I did not use the mention of that to then make some claim that you were supposed to believe simply due to my credential...which would be the fallacy.
I wasn't referring to you (the posters in this forum appear to have a particular problem with identifying the target of a comment...apparently, quoting the source isn't sufficient). Perhaps you are hyper-sensitive, due to your own credential slinging.
And yes, I know where the fallacy lies. Can you give me a plausible reason to mention one's "credentials" unbidden, unless it is to imply an expertise in the subject at hand?
You mean a plausible reason other than the reason I gave in the above quoted text? As for being overly sensitive typically the hypersensitive become hurt and angry or defensive...this is not usually exhibited by an eyeroll. As for why I might have thought you were referring to me personally I have no idea why I would have gotten that impression. But perhaps the hypersensitive are also prone to sarcasm.0 -
Low carb is magic. I am surprised that poster only limits himself to 4000 calories a day. I mean if you don't gain weight or bodyfat eating low carb, why not eat 8000 or 10,000 cals a day. I know I would. /sarcasm
If you don't count calories, how do you know you are eating 4,000 calories a day? Or, is that just a very rough estimate because you are eating "as much as you want'" and it feels like an awful lot of food? Well, my guess is that estimation is over by about a thousand or so.Everyone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
If you are maintaining your weight eating whatever your true calorie intake is, then that's a good thing. You've found your balance and the type of dietary plan that works for you. Perhaps eating less carbs helps you feel satiated, or provides some other healthy benefit, but there is nothing special with low carb as far as calories in/calories out goes.
Low carb is the right plan for the person who chooses it, but it's not the right dietary plan for everyone. There is nothing magical in low carb, except for the magic a person gives it.
And, this comes from someone who believes in choosing your own dietary plan with the caveat that no diet is going to work if you eat over your calorie allowance, and any diet will work if you eat less than your calorie allowance.0 -
Gee, I'm in to watch. :bigsmile:Who's winning ?
I really need to know so I can change my diet to the most popular one. Lmao
Scoot over, please.
0 -
Trolling? When did that word change meaning?
You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trollingEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.0 -
deleted.0
-
Lol is that why you sent me a friend request a few months back?
You don't watch your calories but KNOW you eat 4000+. Strong trollingEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
Eric, I log everything that goes into my mouth. I don't have a calorie budget. I have a carb budget. I'm not trolling so quit looking for ****. You always seem to deny what others have found successful. You are the ****ing troll.
Yeah I did before I realized you disagreed with virtually everybody who posted contrarion views to CICO. LOL. Plus, dude, change your pic or don't you have any other lucky pics?0 -
10% bfEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
4000+ calories is a deficit
2900 TDEE
Defies physics
Almost 50 years old
Definitely not a troll. Right.
LOL. Maybe the government needs to experiment on my alien body. My pic was taken two weeks ago. I will be 50 in November. The MFP forums have got to be the most thick headed cultish people on earth. Criticize all you want but it won't change the fact that I"m 10% body fat eating without a deficit. I feel sorry for you.0 -
10% bfEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
4000+ calories is a deficit
2900 TDEE
Defies physics
Almost 50 years old
Definitely not a troll. Right.
LOL. Maybe the government needs to experiment on my alien body. My pic was taken two weeks ago. I will be 50 in November so f you. The MFP forums have got to be the most thick headed cultish people on earth. Criticize all you want but it won't change the fact that I"m 10% body fat eating without a deficit. I feel sorry for you.
No it's us low carb people who are cultish, didn't you know?0 -
That's cool. I'm fine with low-carb if that works for people. Some people do better with fewer carbs. Personally, though, it's easier for ME to eat what I want and eat within a calorie goal than it is to cut out my favorite foods. (It's basically how I've maintained over the years as I've aged.) It needs to be sustainable and life-long for me, and that means plenty of pasta to keep me sane. I've never had weight problems and I've always eaten plenty of carbs. Do what works for YOU! :flowerforyou:
I agree we are all different and one diet definitely does not work for all. However, I do believe (and know for a fact) that not all calories are created equal. But if counting calories works for you then who cares what some NYT article says!
how can it be a fact if it is not a fact?
A calorie is just a unit of energy. Therefore they are all the same in that regards.
All diets work, If it puts you in a caloric deficit.
I don't care what you eat, i don't care if you count calories, It means nothing to me.
I just find it ridiculous when people tote falsities as facts, and promote the diet they are on as the best diet, or only diet.
I'm not promoting any kind of diet. All I'm saying is that not all calories are created equal. And yes that's a fact. You can't argue that 100 calories of cookies has the same effect to your body as 100 calories of celery would.
The calories have the same effect: they supply energy
The macro breakdown is different - there is a lot more protein and fat in the cookies.
The cookies would also supply more micronutrients.0 -
10% bfEveryone argues that the article sucks yet I eat 4000+ calories a day, do no cardio, lift some weights and my bf is 10% and I'm going to be 50 in a few months. I don't watch my calories. I keep my carbs at 20% and I eat as much as I want. Sorry you nay sayers can't beleive it but that's the way it is. Carb restriction works for some people regarding of how many calories they eat. My tdee is 2900, I've been eating 4000+ calories for months and lost weight which was fat. I'm getting leaner so I don't hold any merit in CICO anymore because it isn't as simple as that.
4000+ calories is a deficit
2900 TDEE
Defies physics
Almost 50 years old
Definitely not a troll. Right.
LOL. Maybe the government needs to experiment on my alien body. My pic was taken two weeks ago. I will be 50 in November so f you. The MFP forums have got to be the most thick headed cultish people on earth. Criticize all you want but it won't change the fact that I"m 10% body fat eating without a deficit. I feel sorry for you.
I think pandas do something similar.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 936 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions