A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Options
Replies
-
Interesting article in today's New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html
From the article:
“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
Flies in the face of everything we believe here.
Does it? Granted, I very knew to this site, but I would assume there are just as many struggling here as elsewhere when focusing on calories alone.
I do wonder though why they chose to put low-fat up against low-carb, though. Doctors and scientists who study nutrition have been against low-fat diets for quite some time, especially if weight loss is the only goal. Your local GP, who probably does not keep up with nutrition as s/he should, may still recommend it, though. It's pretty common knowledge that eating things like olive oil, avocado, oily fish and nuts are recommended for good health.
You can't review a study on low-fat vs low-carb and rationally conclude that low-carb works better than counting calories. To know if calorie counting works better than low carb w/o calorie counting, one would have to study those ways of eating.0 -
For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.0 -
Like always you got nothing!For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.0 -
Like always you got nothing!For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.
What you're asking doesn't make sense. Extrapolating into absurdity and then declaring victory because the absurdity doesn't exist is the height of foolishness and ignorance. Well, maybe not the height, but definitely up there.
How about this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Different macros (low carb versus high carb) on women with different insulin sensitivity resulted in different weight loss. The insulin sensitive women lost more on the higher carb diet whereas the insulin resistant women lost more on the low carb high fat diet. Protein intakes were the same in both groups and they were isocaloric deficits.0 -
Interesting article in today's New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html
From the article:
“To my knowledge, this is one of the first long-term trials that’s given these diets without calorie restrictions,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, the dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University, who was not involved in the new study. “It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories. And that’s really important because someone can change what they eat more easily than trying to cut down on their calories.”
Flies in the face of everything we believe here.
Does it? Granted, I very knew to this site, but I would assume there are just as many struggling here as elsewhere when focusing on calories alone.
I do wonder though why they chose to put low-fat up against low-carb, though. Doctors and scientists who study nutrition have been against low-fat diets for quite some time, especially if weight loss is the only goal. Your local GP, who probably does not keep up with nutrition as s/he should, may still recommend it, though. It's pretty common knowledge that eating things like olive oil, avocado, oily fish and nuts are recommended for good health.
You can't review a study on low-fat vs low-carb and rationally conclude that low-carb works better than counting calories. To know if calorie counting works better than low carb w/o calorie counting, one would have to study those ways of eating.
It wasn't comparing calorie counting to low carb w/o calorie counting. It was comparing a group with fat intake at 30% and a group with intake of carbs at 40g (so the low carb group had to focus more on counting than the "low" fat group. Neither one were specifically told to count their calories and limit themselves specifically below a calorie amount.
Even if people were wrong in what they reported (both groups being wrong), then what about the actual loss numbers at the end of it? For me , I'm not arguing against CICO, I'm saying the avenue to restrict your calorie in can be different than just the standard low cal and that when you eat low carb, even if you don't intend to restrict calories, you do because you just aren't as hungry. Simple as that. Some people may not be hungry eating high carb while restricting calories, but for many people, eating moderate protein and high fat keeps their hunger in check. Don't say you don't like blanket statements MrM and then proceed to make one yourself. Good for you for eating high carb and eating in calorie restriction, good for you for drinking Coke, but that doesn't mean nobody else can be hungry while eating high carb or think that Coke is worth it for the calories.0 -
For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.
In the same paragraph that you mention how others aren't "addressing legitimate arguments," you call someone ignorant?
No need to comment further, since, if an explanation is required, you wouldn't understand it anyway.0 -
There isn't a "huge trend" anywhere. If we are going to accept that the intake numbers are, somehow, accurate, then we have a situation where the "low carb" group had an extra daily deficit of around 100 calories a day, which over 12 months (surprise, surprise) just happens to line up perfectly with how much more weight was reported as lost by the "low carb" group.
If we aren't going to accept the intake numbers are accurate, then we're all talking out our *kitten*, because nobody knows what or how much the study participants actually ate, of anything.
So either this study is useless due to self-reported intake data, or it is a rock solid confirmation of CICO.
Take your pick, either way is fine with me.0 -
For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.
In the same paragraph that you mention how others aren't "addressing legitimate arguments," you call someone ignorant?
No need to comment further, since, if an explanation is required, you wouldn't understand it anyway.
Oh, yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the contribution.0 -
For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
Not sure that's exactly what people are saying when arguing about CICO - but then again I don't usually get into the whole CICO debates.
In any event I think you hit the nail on the head when you talk about adjusting your calorie target over time. All too often people want to continue playing with TDEE calculators after months of logging their weight and food, yet that's a huge waste of time and something that doesn't get enough attention (in my humble opinion). Calculators are only useful for estimating a starting point. If you haven't lost weight after 3 months of very consistent logging, then you need to drop your calories and it doesn't matter what a TDEE calculator says. I always think of it as:
- If you aren't losing at a reasonable rate, drop your calories by 10%.
- If you're losing too fast and/or struggling in the gym, up your calories 10%.
- Reassess after a reasonable period of time and repeat as needed.
- And yes I stole that from Lyle.
If you're not losing, whether due to underestimating what you eat, overestimating what you burn, having a slower metabolism, or whatever other reason there might be, at the end of the day you need to make an adjustment. Arguing that you're special because you aren't seeing progress even though the number you wrote down on paper matches the number that an online calculator told you is a fruitless exercise. That time could be better spent adjusting your own diet so that you will make progress, rather than complaining about how you can't.0 -
It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories.
So out of curiosity, just to ask this question...if you don't track your calories and you change your diet and you lose weight how do you know that it wasn't because you established a caloric deficit given that...you know...you don't know how many calories you were eating.
0 -
I knew it was coming with your presence but already we're going to start talking about insulin resistant people, pcos, etc as if everyone has the same issue?
Like always you got nothing!For the CICO deniers:
Produce one study that shows eating MORE than you burn results in weight LOSS.
Produce one study the shows eating LESS than you burn results in weight GAIN.
The problem with the "special snowflakes" is they can't figure out what their calories out part of the equation is. That requires data analysis, experimentation and patience. No calculator can accurately determine what your calories out is going to be, you have to do the work to figure it out.
This just shows your ignorance. This doesn't even make sense. And, it's not what most of the "CICO deniers" claim. Though I know it's easier for you to present false arguments against which you rail. Actually addressing legitimate arguments is much more difficult....but continue with your red herrings.
What you're asking doesn't make sense. Extrapolating into absurdity and then declaring victory because the absurdity doesn't exist is the height of foolishness and ignorance. Well, maybe not the height, but definitely up there.
How about this one: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full
Different macros (low carb versus high carb) on women with different insulin sensitivity resulted in different weight loss. The insulin sensitive women lost more on the higher carb diet whereas the insulin resistant women lost more on the low carb high fat diet. Protein intakes were the same in both groups and they were isocaloric deficits.
Of course not, but pretending that something like insulin resistance isn't incredibly COMMON (over 40% of US adults have it at prediabetic or diabetic levels -- the vast majority of which are wholly unaware of it). is a disservice. And since insulin resistance makes is more difficult to lose weight and easier to put weight on, it makes sense that an even higher percentage of obese and overweight individuals have insulin resistance. And, guess what, lowering carbs helps those people lose weight more effectively. Pretty much in line with the study originally cited. Shocking...0 -
It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories.
So out of curiosity, just to ask this question...if you don't track your calories and you change your diet and you lose weight how do you know that it wasn't because you established a caloric deficit given that...you know...you don't know how many calories you were eating.
Is someone saying that there was weight loss without a deficit?
The point is (as you so kindly quoted) that it is easier to arrive at said deficit when eating less carbs.
Are individuals here being willfully obtuse?
Don't others on this forum often say to eat foods high in fat and protein to help with satiety? Are they incorrect also?0 -
It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories.
So out of curiosity, just to ask this question...if you don't track your calories and you change your diet and you lose weight how do you know that it wasn't because you established a caloric deficit given that...you know...you don't know how many calories you were eating.
Is someone saying that there was weight loss without a deficit?
The point is (as you so kindly quoted) that it is easier to arrive at said deficit when eating less carbs.
Are individuals here being willfully obtuse?
Don't others on this forum often say to eat foods high in fat and protein to help with satiety? Are they incorrect also?
I'm also not sure what your point is Aaron? Hell, you can lose weight without counting calories as long as you're below maintenance. Obviously its easier to know this if you count.0 -
It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories.
So out of curiosity, just to ask this question...if you don't track your calories and you change your diet and you lose weight how do you know that it wasn't because you established a caloric deficit given that...you know...you don't know how many calories you were eating.
Is someone saying that there was weight loss without a deficit?
The point is (as you so kindly quoted) that it is easier to arrive at said deficit when eating less carbs.
Are individuals here being willfully obtuse?
Don't others on this forum often say to eat foods high in fat and protein to help with satiety? Are they incorrect also?
The point is that "cutting carbs" is not the reason for the weight loss, the caloric deficit is. It is just that "cutting carbs" in a world filled with high-calorie, low-nutrient carb rich foods often lands you on a caloric deficit. The point is if you focus on "cutting carbs" you are not focusing on the actual effector of your weight loss which is not nearly as effective as paying attention to the actual cause. You want the best results while still being able to eat what you enjoy, then look at the calories. You want to avoid counting calories then sure, avoid carbs like the plague...but there is no reason to act superior or like this is somehow dismantling the idea of establishing a caloric deficit and that carbs aren't a bad thing.
By analogy its like giving someone instructions on how to swim safely in the ocean and their response being to move inland so they are no where near an ocean, declare themselves safe from drowning and then act smug about it. Well, okay...that is a solution sure but its sort of causing yourself more trouble than its worth just to ignore the actual problem.0 -
It shows that in a free-living setting, cutting your carbs helps you lose weight without focusing on calories.
So out of curiosity, just to ask this question...if you don't track your calories and you change your diet and you lose weight how do you know that it wasn't because you established a caloric deficit given that...you know...you don't know how many calories you were eating.
Is someone saying that there was weight loss without a deficit?
The point is (as you so kindly quoted) that it is easier to arrive at said deficit when eating less carbs.
Are individuals here being willfully obtuse?
Don't others on this forum often say to eat foods high in fat and protein to help with satiety? Are they incorrect also?
I'm also not sure what your point is Aaron? Hell, you can lose weight without counting calories as long as you're below maintenance. Obviously its easier to know this if you count.
And I'm not sure how else to explain it.
Ask a friend to read it to you.
Oh, and I'm not "Aaron," so perhaps you're trying to digest this all too quickly?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions