A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
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?
i agree. i follow a low-carb way of eating, and i've re-incorporated exercise. i'm specifically doing it this way (rather than just a general cutting calories) because the additional protein helps rebuild muscle while the additional fat gives me extra endurance energy to be able to exercise.0 -
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.0 -
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.
If you're a rock climber, sure. But if you're not, it probably is way lame, not worth the effort or crazy, depending on the person's preferences. Now, I'd like to take my wing off the top, but I'm pretty sure that would get me arrested and plenty of other people would thing that was crazy/lame/etc. To each, their own.0 -
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.
For me, it was eating low carb that taught me best about "spending" my calories once I was maintaining; I can eat a sandwich but skip the fries because they aren't worth it, eating a single bowl of cereal won't keep me full, and eat some darn veggies. I think short-term, there is a focus on carb counting, however, I do believe that those that have been low carbing for a long time do look at total calories at some point as well. People think that eating Atkins means never eating a slice of bread or an apple again and that's not true.
However, it wasn't until MFP that I learned WHY I lost weight while eating low carb. I would have insisted it was the restriction of carbs and not eating mounds of chips, cake, fries, and ice cream. That's part of it, but the other part is fat and protein keeping me full. I definitely didn't understand that until MFP.0 -
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.
Agree, or I did until we had people jumping in to make quite different claims.0 -
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.
For me, it was eating low carb that taught me best about "spending" my calories once I was maintaining; I can eat a sandwich but skip the fries because they aren't worth it, eating a single bowl of cereal won't keep me full, and eat some darn veggies. I think short-term, there is a focus on carb counting, however, I do believe that those that have been low carbing for a long time do look at total calories at some point as well. People think that eating Atkins means never eating a slice of bread or an apple again and that's not true.
However, it wasn't until MFP that I learned WHY I lost weight while eating low carb. I would have insisted it was the restriction of carbs and not eating mounds of chips, cake, fries, and ice cream. That's part of it, but the other part is fat and protein keeping me full. I definitely didn't understand that until MFP.
I ended up in the exact same place without cutting carbs specifically. I bet if I was tracking, our macros would look pretty similar because, as I said, I tend to feel better with more protein and fats.
Hugs!0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.
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.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.
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.0 -
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?
i agree. i follow a low-carb way of eating, and i've re-incorporated exercise. i'm specifically doing it this way (rather than just a general cutting calories) because the additional protein helps rebuild muscle while the additional fat gives me extra endurance energy to be able to exercise.
I still wouldn't go out on a 2 hour run without Bloks, even with a high-fat diet.0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
He's down from 220. He did the work. It's easy to be whiny when you haven't.0 -
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?
i agree. i follow a low-carb way of eating, and i've re-incorporated exercise. i'm specifically doing it this way (rather than just a general cutting calories) because the additional protein helps rebuild muscle while the additional fat gives me extra endurance energy to be able to exercise.
I never noticed a difference in energy exercising while low carb and exercising while doing low calorie. I'm not out running marathons but its not that its I don't "want" to exercise or that I don't have the energy to do any exercise. I've always had the opposite happen while eating low carb in that I have more energy. It also doesn't seem to be an issue for those who've been on the low carb/keto forums for awhile.0 -
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.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
He's down from 220. He did the work. It's easy to be whiny when you haven't.
I hope you're not confusing me with one of the "whiners."
I think everyone that does the work, and makes the sacrifices (regardless whether I agree with their particular dietary views), deserves kudos.0 -
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?
i agree. i follow a low-carb way of eating, and i've re-incorporated exercise. i'm specifically doing it this way (rather than just a general cutting calories) because the additional protein helps rebuild muscle while the additional fat gives me extra endurance energy to be able to exercise.
I never noticed a difference in energy exercising while low carb and exercising while doing low calorie. I'm not out running marathons but its not that its I don't "want" to exercise or that I don't have the energy to do any exercise. I've always had the opposite happen while eating low carb in that I have more energy. It also doesn't seem to be an issue for those who've been on the low carb/keto forums for awhile.
Right - it's the endurance athletes who tend to notice the difference, not the lifters. And even that generalization doesn't cover all of the personal experiences out there.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.
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.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
He's down from 220. He did the work. It's easy to be whiny when you haven't.
I hope you're not confusing me with one of the "whiners."
I think everyone that does the work, and makes the sacrifices (regardless whether I agree with their particular dietary views), deserves kudos.
I see the people who *have* done the work get dinged for "not understanding people's tribulations". A lot. A whole lot.
Apparently, looking good after losing 50 or 100 pounds turns people into insensitive meanies or something.
My experience on these forums has been that there's a lot more BS from the people who haven't put the work in.0 -
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.0 -
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 3.0 -
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.
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.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.
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.
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?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
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.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.
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.
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".0 -
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.
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.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.
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.
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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 information0
-
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.0 -
Your attempt to be clever in the deflecting of the insult fails.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions