A Call for a Low-Carb Diet

lindsey1979

Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.

And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.

What are your stats then?

Diseases are important when they impact weight loss -- the very purpose of this site -- and disproportionately so for overweight/obese people. It's about getting the most helpful information out to people. Sometimes disease that after over 40% of the population are, and should be, part of that discussion. For having so many people in your family afflicted by those very same diseases, it seems like you'd be more interested in such discussions.

People with those diseases would be better off getting info from medical professionals than from "experts" from "Top 10" universities "in the world"

Shows how much you know. I went 4 different "medical professionals", including 2 endos and they didn't get it right. It's a terribly common story. People need to be their own advocates. Western medicine is great for many things, but it's mostly catastrophe related and doesn't pick up problems until they're very, very bad.

likitisplit

Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.

And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.

What are your stats then?

Diseases are important when they impact weight loss -- the very purpose of this site -- and disproportionately so for overweight/obese people. It's about getting the most helpful information out to people. Sometimes a disease that affects over 40% of the population are, and should be, part of that discussion. For having so many people in your family afflicted by those very same diseases, it seems like you'd be more interested in such discussions.

Lol. You want to know my personal stats for what so you can parade them around and sling personal insults like you enjoy doing?

I have gladly placed my pictures out the my entire journey. I'm 5'7" and 155 lbs. Down from 220. Gladly I put my achievements out there. You have not ones shown anything, you hide behind a picture of the dog and cry about people with diseases.

Go ahead and take a personal attack for going from obese and sloppy to lean, with definition, strong and eating whatever I want. As I laugh at the ones who make excuses.

Me and my report button are here for you!

SummiD83

.

likitisplit

Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.

And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.

What are your stats then?

Diseases are important when they impact weight loss -- the very purpose of this site -- and disproportionately so for overweight/obese people. It's about getting the most helpful information out to people. Sometimes disease that after over 40% of the population are, and should be, part of that discussion. For having so many people in your family afflicted by those very same diseases, it seems like you'd be more interested in such discussions.

People with those diseases would be better off getting info from medical professionals than from "experts" from "Top 10" universities "in the world"

Shows how much you know. I went 4 different "medical professionals", including 2 endos and they didn't get it right. It's a terribly common story. People need to be their own advocates. Western medicine is great for many things, but it's mostly catastrophe related and doesn't pick up problems until they're very, very bad.

If I'm ever diagnosed with a thyroid condition, diabetes, etc., there are many resources I would use to learn more and advocate for myself.

One of which would not be you.

SummiD83

Aloha! I can't say that the argument stating you need a deficit is incorrect.... but I will tell you all that I cut carbs to less than 30grams a day and did not track calories at all. I went from 200lbs to 145lbs in 4 months. I hit my goal weight in October 2013 and now sit at a comfortable 150. I always feel energized and have no binge problems or hunger pains the way I did when I weighed 200 and calorie counted. I love living the low carb lifestyle. It works for some and doesn't for others. It was also the hardest thing I ever did. Sugar is an addiction no matter if it's chocolate or white bread... it's all sugar.

It's all sugar and it's not an addiction.

My apologies for generalizing. I should have said that sugar for ME was an addiction and a very hard one for me to let go of. It was harder for me to stop eating sugar in all forms than it was for me to stop drinking and that, for me, was a very big deal.

lindsey1979

Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.

And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.

What are your stats then?

Diseases are important when they impact weight loss -- the very purpose of this site -- and disproportionately so for overweight/obese people. It's about getting the most helpful information out to people. Sometimes a disease that affects over 40% of the population are, and should be, part of that discussion. For having so many people in your family afflicted by those very same diseases, it seems like you'd be more interested in such discussions.

Lol. You want to know my personal stats for what so you can parade them around and sling personal insults like you enjoy doing?

I have gladly placed my pictures out the my entire journey. I'm 5'7" and 155 lbs. Down from 220. Gladly I put my achievements out there. You have not ones shown anything, you hide behind a picture of the dog and cry about people with diseases.

Go ahead and take a personal attack for going from obese and sloppy to lean, with definition, strong and eating whatever I want. As I laugh at the ones who make excuses.

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.

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.

Sabine_Stroehm

Aloha! I can't say that the argument stating you need a deficit is incorrect.... but I will tell you all that I cut carbs to less than 30grams a day and did not track calories at all. I went from 200lbs to 145lbs in 4 months. I hit my goal weight in October 2013 and now sit at a comfortable 150. I always feel energized and have no binge problems or hunger pains the way I did when I weighed 200 and calorie counted. I love living the low carb lifestyle. It works for some and doesn't for others. It was also the hardest thing I ever did. Sugar was an addiction for me. No matter if it was chocolate, fruit or bread... it's all sugar and I had a very hard time giving it up, but it was so worth it.

Congrats on your loss!! Being MFP folks will tell you you lost the weight because you created a calorie deficit (which you did). Did you also change a lot about how you interact with food, you betcha. Did you perhaps change your blood sugar? Probably. Did you improve your health? YUP.

Congrats! You know what works for you. Keep doing it.

SummiD83

Aloha! I can't say that the argument stating you need a deficit is incorrect.... but I will tell you all that I cut carbs to less than 30grams a day and did not track calories at all. I went from 200lbs to 145lbs in 4 months. I hit my goal weight in October 2013 and now sit at a comfortable 150. I always feel energized and have no binge problems or hunger pains the way I did when I weighed 200 and calorie counted. I love living the low carb lifestyle. It works for some and doesn't for others. It was also the hardest thing I ever did. Sugar is an addiction no matter if it's chocolate or white bread... it's all sugar.

Now, anyone who doesn't feel you need to stop at the convenience store every day for a liter-sized fountain drink will be lumped in with your "sugar is an addiction" comments.

Thanks for ending any potential for thoughtful discussion.

My apologies for generalizing. I should have said that sugar for ME was an addiction and a very hard one for me to let go of. It was harder for me to stop eating sugar in all forms than it was for me to stop drinking and that, for me, was a very big deal.

(Ah, who am I kidding?)

lindsey1979

Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.

And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.

What are your stats then?

Diseases are important when they impact weight loss -- the very purpose of this site -- and disproportionately so for overweight/obese people. It's about getting the most helpful information out to people. Sometimes disease that after over 40% of the population are, and should be, part of that discussion. For having so many people in your family afflicted by those very same diseases, it seems like you'd be more interested in such discussions.

People with those diseases would be better off getting info from medical professionals than from "experts" from "Top 10" universities "in the world"

Shows how much you know. I went 4 different "medical professionals", including 2 endos and they didn't get it right. It's a terribly common story. People need to be their own advocates. Western medicine is great for many things, but it's mostly catastrophe related and doesn't pick up problems until they're very, very bad.

If I'm ever diagnosed with a thyroid condition, diabetes, etc., there are many resources I would use to learn more and advocate for myself.

One of which would not be you.

Not a problem. There have been plenty of others than have thanked me for sharing my information. I wish I'd have run into some like me 10 years ago as I may have avoided some of the unnecessary difficulty I encountered. And it was people just like me on websites like this that ultimately pointed me in the right direction -- not the medical professionals, unfortunately.

MelRC117

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?

Clearly you're wrong in who needs to touch up their reading comprehension skills.

likitisplit

Aloha! I can't say that the argument stating you need a deficit is incorrect.... but I will tell you all that I cut carbs to less than 30grams a day and did not track calories at all. I went from 200lbs to 145lbs in 4 months. I hit my goal weight in October 2013 and now sit at a comfortable 150. I always feel energized and have no binge problems or hunger pains the way I did when I weighed 200 and calorie counted. I love living the low carb lifestyle. It works for some and doesn't for others. It was also the hardest thing I ever did. Sugar is an addiction no matter if it's chocolate or white bread... it's all sugar.

It's all sugar and it's not an addiction.

My apologies for generalizing. I should have said that sugar for ME was an addiction and a very hard one for me to let go of. It was harder for me to stop eating sugar in all forms than it was for me to stop drinking and that, for me, was a very big deal.

Love the edit. Thank you and GOOD JOB!

WonderKP

for the people bashing this post....

It does make sense, because usually when you DO cut down carbs, you tend to eat fewer calories anyways. Since carbs are an easy way to fill up calories. So that's probably why that article says that the way they do.

When I cut out most grains and treats, I had a harder time eating enough calories for the day. At least to me, it essentially means the same.

On a side note, sure, not everyone will benefit from cutting down on carbs, but it seems most people, especially women see improvements to their body shapes (especially waists) if they cut back on simple sugars/carbs!

MelRC117

Honestly, I've lost weight using carb-heavy foods and lost weight being in total ketosis for over a month. I did NOT notice a difference in the rate of weight loss between the two diets and the low carb diet made me have very low energy. I think the low-carb thing is for people who just don't want to exercise. Cutting my calories, no matter what the food, has always worked the same for me. That being said, low carb foods do keep you much fuller. It's just up to you. I thought doing low-carb for a while was just a fun way to change up my diet for a bit so that's how I used it.

I would be very careful in saying low carb is for people that don't want to exercise. Why would some eating low carb be less apt to exercise than someone who focuses on eating overall low calorie?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

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.

likitisplit

Honestly, I've lost weight using carb-heavy foods and lost weight being in total ketosis for over a month. I did NOT notice a difference in the rate of weight loss between the two diets and the low carb diet made me have very low energy. I think the low-carb thing is for people who just don't want to exercise. Cutting my calories, no matter what the food, has always worked the same for me. That being said, low carb foods do keep you much fuller. It's just up to you. I thought doing low-carb for a while was just a fun way to change up my diet for a bit so that's how I used it.

I would be very careful in saying low carb is for people that don't want to exercise. Why would some eating low carb be less apt to exercise than someone who focuses on eating overall low calorie?

While I'm a protein/fat girl myself, I've found that carbs are critical for good runs. With out them, I drag and give up.

You may have seen the "Give me one good reason why refined sugar is a good thing" thread a few weeks back? It was all the endurance athletes who provided reasons that refined sugar could be better than, say, a banana or a slim jim in specific situations.

That's not true of everybody - Tim Noakes has been an advocate of low carb and he runs marathons and ultras, as well as doing some of the better research on running performance (and not great research on low carb). But it's pretty generally true.

59gi

It sure does. A calorie is a calorie regardless if it comes from carrots or cookies, protein, fat or carbs. Weight loss is simple math, calories in versus calories out.

except it's not... simple math, that is.

we all know that a calorie is a unit of heat, specifically the amount of heat it takes to increase the temperature of 1ml of water 1 degree centigrade. when referring to food, what we call "a calorie" is actually a kilocalorie, or the amount of heat it would take to raise 1,000ml of water 1 degree centigrade. and we all know that the way to determine how many calories is in any given amount of food is to, very literally, burn it.

if this were nothing more than simple math, then humans would be able to consume and function just fine eating any material that burned. but we can't. we can only function on three specific macronutrients, and even then each one of us varies in how our bodies handle those macronutrients. the vitamins and minerals we need to function properly can only be processed in the presence of two of those three macronutrients... fat or protein.

we also have to take into account that not everyone's metabolism works the same way. while our bodies have the capability of using carbs for quick bursts of energy (great for sprinting during hunting or running away from an attacker), it's fats that provide the long-lasting endurance energy, where we can eat relatively little in volume but stay satiated for long periods of time. if that creates a deficit, so be it, but there are a lot of people who have found that by eating primarly fats and protein, they were able to lose weight because they unlocked their own fat stores by eating more fats. we already know that insulin is released in order to process glucose for energy... what insulin ALSO does is prevents the body from accessing stored fat for energy until the blood glucose is gone. if you keep carbohydrates to a minimum, or only eat carbohydrates that are indigestible (fiber), then your body is capable of accessing those fat stores and burning them instead of wasting time burning sugars first, fat later. so it's not a process of math, but a process of chemistry.

for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.

I'm another "special little snowflake."

Mr_Knight

I would be very careful in saying low carb is for people that don't want to exercise. Why would some eating low carb be less apt to exercise than someone who focuses on eating overall low calorie?

High intensity exercise requires more energy, faster, than can be supplied by processing ingested fats and/or metabolizing fat stores. So if you don't eat carbs, there will be a wide range of physical activity that you won't be able to be good at.

Even self-described "low carb" athletes eat a large amount of carbs - it's only "low" relative to their overall intake, which is quite high.

Aaron_K123

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.

And I find that totally reasonable. I think the push-back being felt here is because it was approached in this smug "well if all you have to do is lower carb intake then why would you bother with calorie counting" sort of attitude that I think is shortsighted and the opposite of helpful. Yes, certainly, addressing satiation and finding out what macro balance works for you and then just choosing moderation over calorie counting can work for some if not most people, not going to disagree....I just don't think that somehow runs counter to the idea that calorie counting can be good for weight loss which seemed to be the implication.

likitisplit

Yes it is about biology I get that. And some of it does involve diseases, yes. But your arguments all involve biology with diseases, all the time. Every time. You use it as a crutch.

And I'm not sure who you claim is 5'5" 145, not my stats.

What are your stats then?

Diseases are important when they impact weight loss -- the very purpose of this site -- and disproportionately so for overweight/obese people. It's about getting the most helpful information out to people. Sometimes a disease that affects over 40% of the population are, and should be, part of that discussion. For having so many people in your family afflicted by those very same diseases, it seems like you'd be more interested in such discussions.

Lol. You want to know my personal stats for what so you can parade them around and sling personal insults like you enjoy doing?

I have gladly placed my pictures out the my entire journey. I'm 5'7" and 155 lbs. Down from 220. Gladly I put my achievements out there. You have not ones shown anything, you hide behind a picture of the dog and cry about people with diseases.

Go ahead and take a personal attack for going from obese and sloppy to lean, with definition, strong and eating whatever I want. As I laugh at the ones who make excuses.

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.

I have to say that climbing the face of Half Dome is WAY cooler than taking the cables.

yarwell

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"?

Yes. "Take 125 grams per day of carbohydrate out of your food intake".

Mr_Knight

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.

I have to say that climbing the face of Half Dome is WAY cooler than taking the cables.

**** yeah it is.

No comparison.

likitisplit

for the people bashing this post....

It does make sense, because usually when you DO cut down carbs, you tend to eat fewer calories anyways. Since carbs are an easy way to fill up calories. So that's probably why that article says that the way they do.

When I cut out most grains and treats, I had a harder time eating enough calories for the day. At least to me, it essentially means the same.

On a side note, sure, not everyone will benefit from cutting down on carbs, but it seems most people, especially women see improvements to their body shapes (especially waists) if they cut back on simple sugars/carbs!

There is no way to spot reduce.

yarwell

How would they have washed is there is no accuracy anywhere. Everyone being inaccurate isn't going to make it accurate as if it were a true double negative.

If they had missed out the token men the s.d. would have been a lot smaller I suspect.

Aaron_K123

for years i've shouted from the rooftops that the idea of "calories in < calories out = weight loss" simply did not work on me. i now have enough data to change that, but only slightly... my body only seems to work at about 75% efficiency, so the caloric deficit i'd need to create in order to manage the same rate of loss that everyone else has is unsustainable and downright dangerous. so if anyone wants proof that there are "special little snowflakes" in the world who aren't able to follow the dogmatic mantra, i'm it.

I'm unclear as to how that is special and not just part of the normal bell curve distribution you would expect from a large population. No one claims that what is written on a box in terms of calories is the exact amount of energy that everyones body extracts from that, however it IS going to be a percent modifier...meaning that if you pick up the box with 300 calories in it verses 150 calories in it that you will get twice the number of calories even if your body only efficiently processes 75% of them. Its all relative so the numbers on the box are still informative.

Of course you have to track your intake, of course you have to track your weight loss and then backcalculate to determine your maintenance to establish your deficit for you personally. If you actually read the main forum posts that is exactly what people say to do.

This doesn't make you special at all, it just means you eventually did the work that is required to determine what your actual maintenance level is which is exactly what you are supposed to do according to proponents of CICO methods of weight loss.

CICO doesn't mean that the number on a food box is the exact energy that your body extracts CICO means A) establish what your maintenance level is on the basis of those values THEN establish a consistant deficit. If you don't do step A then you can't be suprised when step B doesn't work.

likitisplit

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.

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.

And I find that totally reasonable. I think the push-back being felt here is because it was approached in this smug "well if all you have to do is lower carb intake then why would you bother with calorie counting" sort of attitude that I think is shortsighted and the opposite of helpful. Yes, certainly, addressing satiation and finding out what macro balance works for you and then just choosing moderation over calorie counting can work for some if not most people, not going to disagree....I just don't think that somehow runs counter to the idea that calorie counting can be good for weight loss which seemed to be the implication.

Agreed, and I don't think the idea of sticking predominantly with satiating foods runs counter to calorie counting being good for weight loss. Satiation affects how you feel and your mood (and personally I'm a big fan of not feeling hungry), but it's only one factor of many that is worth paying attention to. Personally I'm a big fan of people tracking their calories and all their macros even when running a low carb diet, because it develops good habits and, if you're counting carbs, it's literally no additional effort to track protein and overall calories as well. Honestly I'm always amazed these threads turn into such a heated debate, as I personally don't see a lot of disagreement between the study of the day and conventional wisdom about nutrition and weight loss. Foods eaten as part of a low carb diet tend to be more satiating than the standard American diet... not a big shocker to me.

Aaron_K123

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"?

Yes. "Take 125 grams per day of carbohydrate out of your food intake".

Really? That applies to the broadest audience? Would it apply to someone who is eating 60 grams of carbs per day?

My point is the one sentence statement for weight loss that applies to the broadest audience is going to be something along the lines of:

"Determine how many calories you need to injest to maintain your weight based on your activity level and then either increase your activity level or decrease your calories in order to establish a caloric deficit."

That applies to everyone. As soon as you start pointing out specifics like eat less of this or do more of that then you are narrowing your field and applying to less and less people. Sure eating 125g less carbs would be reasonable advice to some people, but certainly not everyone.

likitisplit

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.

And I find that totally reasonable. I think the push-back being felt here is because it was approached in this smug "well if all you have to do is lower carb intake then why would you bother with calorie counting" sort of attitude that I think is shortsighted and the opposite of helpful. Yes, certainly, addressing satiation and finding out what macro balance works for you and then just choosing moderation over calorie counting can work for some if not most people, not going to disagree....I just don't think that somehow runs counter to the idea that calorie counting can be good for weight loss which seemed to be the implication.

Agreed, and I don't think the idea of sticking predominantly with satiating foods runs counter to calorie counting being good for weight loss. Satiation affects how you feel and your mood (and personally I'm a big fan of not feeling hungry), but it's only one factor of many that is worth paying attention to. Personally I'm a big fan of people tracking their calories and all their macros even when running a low carb diet, because it develops good habits and, if you're counting carbs, it's literally no additional effort to track protein and overall calories as well. Honestly I'm always amazed these threads turn into such a heated debate, as I personally don't see a lot of disagreement between the study of the day and conventional wisdom about nutrition and weight loss. Foods eaten as part of a low carb diet tend to be more satiating than the standard American diet... not a big shocker to me.

Anything eaten mindfully is more satiating than the SAD.