giving up carbs and sugar..

vismal

My main issue with low/no carb is that most people have no intention of making low/no carb a permanent lifestyle change. They want to use it as a tool to lose weight and then transition into a way of eating that incorporates carbs to maintain weight. The issue here is that during your weight loss you never learned how to manage carbs. If you have cravings, think you are addicted to carbs, etc, you MUST find some way to deal with this problem. What makes you think that you will be over these issues after losing weight and you'll simply be able to reintroduce carbs with no issues?

In my opinion, to have the greatest chance of maintaining weight loss, you must eat in a manner similar to how you plan on maintaining weight. So if you want to eat carbs at some point in your life, I'd say it's a good idea to learn how to lose weight while eating them. This does not only apply to low carb dieting. You could replace the words "low carb" with anything. Paleo, all whole food, vegan, all of those things should be complete lifestyle changes if you want to use them as weight loss plans, otherwise you run the risk of regaining all your lost weight when you transition back to eating an unrestricted diet. This is why I believe that using a balanced approach from the get go leads to more success then any other plan in the long run.

I can't really understand that logic. There's nothing about "managing" carbs that most people need to learn. The same as you need to manage your fat intake if you're trying to create a caloric deficit, you need to manage your carbohydrate intake. It's just food. There's no acquired skill involved or learning required; it's just a question of willpower and what's going to be the path of least resistance for a particular individual. And if setting a lower carb macro helps with satiety and makes it easier for an individual to create a deficit, then that's a good thing (assuming they are comfortable with the restrictive nature of the diet) and they're aren't missing out on some sort of "learning experience" by keeping their carb intake low.

And just an aside, but the whole lifestyle change bit is really over-exaggerated around here in my opinion. At some point, I think someone advocated for a lifestyle change rather than a temporary fix and that was good advice. But somewhere along the lines, this once-good advice has gotten twisted into the concept that you have to maintain weight in the same way you lose weight - and that's nonsense. What needs to remain in the long-term is your focus on body composition and health, but small things like macros and food choices can shift without issue provided you stay focused on your goals. If you find reducing carbs is helpful to you in dropping weight, there's really no harm to that. I never quite understand how low carb elicits such a reaction from people, when we've bodybuilders following pretty extreme diets like Lyle's UD2 and RFLD to get into contest shape and no one says a word to them about "that's not a lifestyle change!" Just because something is transitory in nature does not mean it isn't a useful tool, and it's illogical to think you need to follow any diet until the day you die for it to be helpful.

Most people don't do what you are describing. They go on a restrictive type diet, be it low carb, paleo, whatever. They use it to lose weight. Once the weight is lost they remove the restriction. Then they eat the way they did before they lost weight. They regain the weight. You certainly DO need to learn how to eat in moderation. If you remove or reduce an entire macronutrient or group of food you are simply sweeping the thing you have no control of under a rug. You have to at some point learn to deal with it. If you always overeat on carbs you have two choices. Stop eating carbs or learn to eat carbs in moderation. You can replace the word carbs there with anything. If you always overeat ice cream you either need to learn to eat ice cream in moderation or stop eating ice cream. The problem with elimination is most people simply can't do it. They eventually break.

Your example of bodybuilders using Lyle's extremely restrictive diets does not apply to 99.9% of the people here. Almost everyone here would fail miserably on RFL. Just because a minority of people in the world can complete a specific restrictive diet and transition out of it with no issues does not mean that everyone can. There is a reason that only about 5% of people who lose significant weight can keep it off in the long run. So many people will use restrictive methods in order to achieve weight loss only to gain it back when they remove the restrictions. Obviously if they could keep their calories at maintenance through will power they would not regain weight. But if they didn't have will power issues they would not have needed to go on a restrictive diet in the first place.

Anyone who has lost significant weight and kept it off will probably agree that their lifestyle is fundamentally different. Mine is. I honestly don't know how it couldn't be...

throoper

As others have said, you can't utterly give up carbs because that would rule out vegetables, legumes, fruit, etc. However, it is extremely effective and healthy to cut down on your processed carbs. Go a few weeks without eating bread, pasta, anything with added sugar, alcohol, etc, and you'll definitely lose weight. Stock up on veggies and lean protein, and some amount of fruit and whole grains and legumes instead. It's a healthier way to eat and you'll drop weight, so it's a win-win.

What if I enjoy eating bread and pasta and the occasional beer? Why should I give up things I enjoy if there isn't any real need to? I can eat all the things you mentioned and be perfectly healthy, and lose weight if my calories are set correctly. If you really love pasta would it not be easier to find a way to work it into your diet rather then restrict it and have to crave it?

But then where would be the self-loathing and deprivation? Everyone knows that suffering is a prerequisite to losing weight.

I always forget that part! Also, when you eventually binge on the food you've deprived yourself of, you also have a reason for failure. You can blame the pasta instead of blaming yourself!

?? Uh, why the hostility? I'm answering the OP's question about specifically "giving up" carbs. If you don't want to do that, and you want to eat them in moderation or eat a crazy $hitload of them for that matter, and it works for you, more power to you. Deep breaths homeboy.

parkscs

Your example of bodybuilders using Lyle's extremely restrictive diets does not apply to 99.9% of the people here. Almost everyone here would fail miserably on RFL. Just because a minority of people in the world can complete a specific restrictive diet and transition out of it with no issues does not mean that everyone can. There is a reason that only about 5% of people who lose significant weight can keep it off in the long run. So many people will use restrictive methods in order to achieve weight loss only to gain it back when they remove the restrictions. Obviously if they could keep their calories at maintenance through will power they would not regain weight. But if they didn't have will power issues they would not have needed to go on a restrictive diet in the first place.

I'd honestly disagree with a lot of that. For one, I'm not really aware of any statistics that indicate eating balanced macros leads to greater long-term success. For that matter, I've even seen some studies where people with very restrictive diets (VLCDs) having greater long-term rates of success than people who followed much less restrictive hypocaloric diets, which flies in the face of the conventional wisdom that aggressive, more restrictive diets lead to a greater rate of failure. But even looking at the studies as a whole, there's no clear benefit to balanced macros over restrictive diets at least from what I've seen. Factors such as exercise are a common theme, but as much as the IIFYM crowd would like to believe it, I have yet to see anything that indicates 40/30/30 guarantees or even improves your long-term success rate.

And while I think the success rate is quite a bit higher than 5%, at least from more recent studies I've seen, it's still pretty bleak. Yet it's a logical fallacy to attribute that rate of failure just to restrictive diets - the rate of failure is incredibly high, regardless of how you lose the weight. And just at a basic level, it makes no sense to think that how you lost weight yesterday is going to affect how you're going to eat and exercise today. Put another way, if you dropped 10 pounds over the last 6 months whether it was from low carb, 30/30/40 macros, a vegan diet, extra cardio, whatever - however you dropped the weight 6 months ago, how does that affect how many calories you eat today and how much exercise you do today? Simply put, it doesn't.

I used UFLD as an extreme example, but there are plenty of people who experiment with various diets that aren't as extreme and still see long-term success, even when those experimental diets don't work out very well. Jason Blaha (who I respect, even though he's a bit trollish at times and gets himself sued) is experimenting with a CKD right now. I'd say there's about a 0% chance he continues that diet in the long term - should I expect him to quit powerlifting and get fat again, just because he's not following balanced macros and decided to follow a *gasp* ketogenic diet? It just doesn't make sense, yet that's exactly how people have misinterpreted the notion of a "lifestyle change" on these forums. Obviously you need to alter how you view things in the long-term, but today's diet and exercise routine do not have to remain constant until the day you die. To me, the notion that short-term diets can be useful and the notion that long-term success requires long-term changes are not contradictory. It's just that you can't expect long-term results if all you do is a short-term diet.

But, to the extent someone believes they have no control over how they're eating, I do agree with you that they need to find a way to control that. And please don't take this as me bashing you or your post, a lot of which I agree with. I suspect it's just that I'm cranky and argumentative today, since I'm at home with a virus.

GBrady43068

I know a lot of people that have given up on carbs and sugar and it seems to work for them, but is this a healthy route to go?

Are you diabetic? .....then yes. For health reasons you need to manage carbs.

Do you see low carb as a lifestyle change?......then yes. If you see sugar free and low carb as a permanent change, go for it.

The vast majority of people who lose weight....re-gain it at some point. This is because they make a few temporary changes to lose weight......then when dieting is "done".....they go back to same old habits that made them overweight to begin with.

If you do low carb as a temporary change......make sure you have a plan in place for maintenance.

^ This
/thread

baconslave

And just an aside, but the whole lifestyle change bit is really over-exaggerated around here in my opinion. At some point, I think someone advocated for a lifestyle change rather than a temporary fix and that was good advice. But somewhere along the lines, this once-good advice has gotten twisted into the concept that you have to maintain weight in the same way you lose weight - and that's nonsense. What needs to remain in the long-term is your focus on body composition and health, but small things like macros and food choices can shift without issue provided you stay focused on your goals. If you find reducing carbs is helpful to you in dropping weight, there's really no harm to that. I never quite understand how low carb elicits such a reaction from people, when we've bodybuilders following pretty extreme diets like Lyle's UD2 and RFLD to get into contest shape and no one says a word to them about "that's not a lifestyle change!" Just because something is transitory in nature does not mean it isn't a useful tool, and it's illogical to think you need to follow any diet until the day you die for it to be helpful.

Precisely this.

psuLemon

honestly, asking that around here is a loaded question.

you'll basically get two camps of answers... one, that cutting out any macronutrient is unnecessary, "just eat less", "everything in moderation", "only under a doctor's orders", etc. two, that reducing carbs down to a minimum (as from veggies and fiber) is fine and is a proven diet method that works fine.

hint: on this particular part of the forums, camp one outweighs camp two, pitchforks and torches and all. but there are a few groups specifically dedicated to the low-carb ways of eating where you'll find more support and probably more information if you've got questions.

personally, i'm in camp 2. i prefer to low-carb, and i've seen my own health benefits from it.

It is my opinion that the so called "pitch folks" come out because the majority of long term users don't support fads (this includes paleo, cleanses, vegeterian, etc..). I do fully understand, just like with every diet, there is a lifestyle component that many newbies do not consider. I can't tell you how many people I have see on the forums and IRL switch to a lifestyle because others had success without understand what is really required. In fact, I know several vegetarians that were hospitalized from malnutrition because they didn't understand what is required.

It is my perception, the OP would be using this as a fad because her friends have had success and may not be fully aware or have the knowledge of what will be required to make it successful long term. If the OP is ok with removing foods from her diet or in some cases, entire food groups, then it would be a good tool. Personally, there are advantages to both a moderate approach and a low carb approach. Low carb can provide higher levels of satiety, which will make it easier to sustain a deficit. Moderation will allow you to eat all foods you enjoy. Personally, I cannot do low carb because my workouts struggle when carbs dip by 200g. I also find that I tend to binge when I eliminate foods I enjoy from my diet.

With either diet, you have to educate yourself (which will take time) to be able to sustain long term. Is one better than the other.. nope.. What it comes down to, is which diet/lifestyle can you sustain long term.

PatchEFog

honestly, asking that around here is a loaded question.

you'll basically get two camps of answers... one, that cutting out any macronutrient is unnecessary, "just eat less", "everything in moderation", "only under a doctor's orders", etc. two, that reducing carbs down to a minimum (as from veggies and fiber) is fine and is a proven diet method that works fine.

hint: on this particular part of the forums, camp one outweighs camp two, pitchforks and torches and all. but there are a few groups specifically dedicated to the low-carb ways of eating where you'll find more support and probably more information if you've got questions.

personally, i'm in camp 2. i prefer to low-carb, and i've seen my own health benefits from it.

It is my opinion that the so called "pitch folks" come out because the majority of long term users don't support fads (this includes paleo, cleanses, vegeterian, etc..). I do fully understand, just like with every diet, there is a lifestyle component that many newbies do not consider. I can't tell you how many people I have see on the forums and IRL switch to a lifestyle because others had success without understand what is really required. In fact, I know several vegetarians that were hospitalized from malnutrition because they didn't understand what is required.

It is my perception, the OP would be using this as a fad because her friends have had success and may not be fully aware or have the knowledge of what will be required to make it successful long term. If the OP is ok with removing foods from her diet or in some cases, entire food groups, then it would be a good tool. Personally, there are advantages to both a moderate approach and a low carb approach. Low carb can provide higher levels of satiety, which will make it easier to sustain a deficit. Moderation will allow you to eat all foods you enjoy. Personally, I cannot do low carb because my workouts struggle when carbs dip by 200g. I also find that I tend to binge when I eliminate foods I enjoy from my diet.

With either diet, you have to educate yourself (which will take time) to be able to sustain long term. Is one better than the other.. nope.. What it comes down to, is which diet/lifestyle can you sustain long term.

One man/woman's "fad" is another man/woman's WOE.

stumblinthrulife

honestly, asking that around here is a loaded question.

you'll basically get two camps of answers... one, that cutting out any macronutrient is unnecessary, "just eat less", "everything in moderation", "only under a doctor's orders", etc. two, that reducing carbs down to a minimum (as from veggies and fiber) is fine and is a proven diet method that works fine.

hint: on this particular part of the forums, camp one outweighs camp two, pitchforks and torches and all. but there are a few groups specifically dedicated to the low-carb ways of eating where you'll find more support and probably more information if you've got questions.

personally, i'm in camp 2. i prefer to low-carb, and i've seen my own health benefits from it.

It is my opinion that the so called "pitch folks" come out because the majority of long term users don't support fads (this includes paleo, cleanses, vegeterian, etc..). I do fully understand, just like with every diet, there is a lifestyle component that many newbies do not consider. I can't tell you how many people I have see on the forums and IRL switch to a lifestyle because others had success without understand what is really required. In fact, I know several vegetarians that were hospitalized from malnutrition because they didn't understand what is required.

It is my perception, the OP would be using this as a fad because her friends have had success and may not be fully aware or have the knowledge of what will be required to make it successful long term. If the OP is ok with removing foods from her diet or in some cases, entire food groups, then it would be a good tool. Personally, there are advantages to both a moderate approach and a low carb approach. Low carb can provide higher levels of satiety, which will make it easier to sustain a deficit. Moderation will allow you to eat all foods you enjoy. Personally, I cannot do low carb because my workouts struggle when carbs dip by 200g. I also find that I tend to binge when I eliminate foods I enjoy from my diet.

With either diet, you have to educate yourself (which will take time) to be able to sustain long term. Is one better than the other.. nope.. What it comes down to, is which diet/lifestyle can you sustain long term.

One man/woman's "fad" is another man/woman's WOE, MFP Moderator.
WTG being supportive and inclusive, MFP Moderator.

I don't believe there is anything in the rules that says that as soon as you become a moderator you must give up all opinions.

I think this was a well written post, simply pointing out that whatever approach you wish to take, it is important that you educate yourself on the upsides as well as the downsides, and learn to mitigate the downsides. To take the most often cited and extreme example, someone blundering into veganism without learning about vitamin B12 and where to get it, could get very, very sick.

MostlyWater

Speak to a nutritionist. Don't torture yourself.

meridianova

honestly, asking that around here is a loaded question.

you'll basically get two camps of answers... one, that cutting out any macronutrient is unnecessary, "just eat less", "everything in moderation", "only under a doctor's orders", etc. two, that reducing carbs down to a minimum (as from veggies and fiber) is fine and is a proven diet method that works fine.

hint: on this particular part of the forums, camp one outweighs camp two, pitchforks and torches and all. but there are a few groups specifically dedicated to the low-carb ways of eating where you'll find more support and probably more information if you've got questions.

personally, i'm in camp 2. i prefer to low-carb, and i've seen my own health benefits from it.

It is my opinion that the so called "pitch folks" come out because the majority of long term users don't support fads (this includes paleo, cleanses, vegeterian, etc..). I do fully understand, just like with every diet, there is a lifestyle component that many newbies do not consider. I can't tell you how many people I have see on the forums and IRL switch to a lifestyle because others had success without understand what is really required. In fact, I know several vegetarians that were hospitalized from malnutrition because they didn't understand what is required.

It is my perception, the OP would be using this as a fad because her friends have had success and may not be fully aware or have the knowledge of what will be required to make it successful long term. If the OP is ok with removing foods from her diet or in some cases, entire food groups, then it would be a good tool. Personally, there are advantages to both a moderate approach and a low carb approach. Low carb can provide higher levels of satiety, which will make it easier to sustain a deficit. Moderation will allow you to eat all foods you enjoy. Personally, I cannot do low carb because my workouts struggle when carbs dip by 200g. I also find that I tend to binge when I eliminate foods I enjoy from my diet.

With either diet, you have to educate yourself (which will take time) to be able to sustain long term. Is one better than the other.. nope.. What it comes down to, is which diet/lifestyle can you sustain long term.

one of the things i've noticed is that complex concept diets, like any of the low-carb ilk, vegan, whole foods, etc., require more focus, more education, and are going to be harder than what most people want to deal with. a lot of people just want to take the path of least resistance... which is understandable because that's part of being human. i can't count how many times i've seen "why do you want to do X? just do Y and you'll be fine", with "Y" being some variation on "calories in < calories out = weight loss".

educating ourselves is hard, but i fail to understand why people are so opposed to it. straight-up calorie reduction doesn't work for me because i've got issues beyond just losing weight to deal with, and i know i'm not the only one. and let's be honest here... just because something is labeled a "fad" doesn't make it invalid, it only makes it new to the current population. once upon a time, christianity was a fad... books were fads... bathing was a fad... the internet was a fad.

lemurcat12

And just an aside, but the whole lifestyle change bit is really over-exaggerated around here in my opinion. At some point, I think someone advocated for a lifestyle change rather than a temporary fix and that was good advice. But somewhere along the lines, this once-good advice has gotten twisted into the concept that you have to maintain weight in the same way you lose weight - and that's nonsense. What needs to remain in the long-term is your focus on body composition and health, but small things like macros and food choices can shift without issue provided you stay focused on your goals. If you find reducing carbs is helpful to you in dropping weight, there's really no harm to that. I never quite understand how low carb elicits such a reaction from people, when we've bodybuilders following pretty extreme diets like Lyle's UD2 and RFLD to get into contest shape and no one says a word to them about "that's not a lifestyle change!" Just because something is transitory in nature does not mean it isn't a useful tool, and it's illogical to think you need to follow any diet until the day you die for it to be helpful.

I agree with this. I think the bigger point about diets vs. lifestyle changes is that it's best to lose weight in a way that is not unpleasant. If you see what you must do to lose as something you just must endure, and then go back to the way you were eating, then it does no good, obviously, and if you have a lot to lose it's not really going to be sustainable. Now, maybe even this is wrong--the VLCD issue would be worth looking into, although I'd bet the success of those who stay with it is basically self-selected because lots of people don't, and the people studied are more likely to have medical issues, etc., but that's admittedly speculation--I haven't read the studies.

Anyway, this is why I think diets that are essentially eat this restrictive eating plan (i.e., fad diets, the ones that give you a set list of foods to eat or menus per day) aren't a good way to lose, especially if someone wants them because he or she has no idea how to put together a way of eating different than the way that led to the weight gain. That people ask questions that suggest they think there's some magic to the combinations of foods provided confirms me in this belief. I don't think low carb or paleo or vegan, etc. necessarily--or even usually--falls into this category. For a lot of people I think low carb and paleo can be easy and pleasant ways to cut calories, especially if one dislikes counting for some reason (veganism is mostly ethical I believe). But on occasion it can fall more into the fad category when someone just has no clue how to construct a lower calorie diet so decides that he or she must cut out those "bad" foods, like pasta or the "white foods," etc., and I think that's what tends to get people's goat, not those who approach the diet with an understanding of why it works, why it appeals to them, how they might modify it later, etc. With the OP here, I got more the sense that she had been told that you had to cut carbs to lose rather than she'd really thought about it and figured that it would be a way that would work for her, so the answer was to do research and see if the reality sounds appealing, but it's certainly not necessary.

baconslave

honestly, asking that around here is a loaded question.

you'll basically get two camps of answers... one, that cutting out any macronutrient is unnecessary, "just eat less", "everything in moderation", "only under a doctor's orders", etc. two, that reducing carbs down to a minimum (as from veggies and fiber) is fine and is a proven diet method that works fine.

hint: on this particular part of the forums, camp one outweighs camp two, pitchforks and torches and all. but there are a few groups specifically dedicated to the low-carb ways of eating where you'll find more support and probably more information if you've got questions.

personally, i'm in camp 2. i prefer to low-carb, and i've seen my own health benefits from it.

It is my opinion that the so called "pitch folks" come out because the majority of long term users don't support fads (this includes paleo, cleanses, vegeterian, etc..). I do fully understand, just like with every diet, there is a lifestyle component that many newbies do not consider. I can't tell you how many people I have see on the forums and IRL switch to a lifestyle because others had success without understand what is really required. In fact, I know several vegetarians that were hospitalized from malnutrition because they didn't understand what is required.

It is my perception, the OP would be using this as a fad because her friends have had success and may not be fully aware or have the knowledge of what will be required to make it successful long term. If the OP is ok with removing foods from her diet or in some cases, entire food groups, then it would be a good tool. Personally, there are advantages to both a moderate approach and a low carb approach. Low carb can provide higher levels of satiety, which will make it easier to sustain a deficit. Moderation will allow you to eat all foods you enjoy. Personally, I cannot do low carb because my workouts struggle when carbs dip by 200g. I also find that I tend to binge when I eliminate foods I enjoy from my diet.

With either diet, you have to educate yourself (which will take time) to be able to sustain long term. Is one better than the other.. nope.. What it comes down to, is which diet/lifestyle can you sustain long term.

one of the things i've noticed is that complex concept diets, like any of the low-carb ilk, vegan, whole foods, etc., require more focus, more education, and are going to be harder than what most people want to deal with. a lot of people just want to take the path of least resistance... which is understandable because that's part of being human. i can't count how many times i've seen "why do you want to do X? just do Y and you'll be fine", with "Y" being some variation on "calories in < calories out = weight loss".

educating ourselves is hard, but i fail to understand why people are so opposed to it. straight-up calorie reduction doesn't work for me because i've got issues beyond just losing weight to deal with, and i know i'm not the only one. and let's be honest here... just because something is labeled a "fad" doesn't make it invalid, it only makes it new to the current population. once upon a time, christianity was a fad... books were fads... bathing was a fad... the internet was a fad.

And at one time Low-Fat was considered a fad. Now studies and info are coming out that fat is not the villain it was thought to be, and we now know that studies purporting thus were misrepresented.

Fad is defined: "an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze."

And continually calling something a fad, if it is no longer one, doesn't make it a fad. It just makes for silly arguments.

OP should read up on the difference between simple and complex carbohydrates and low-carb diets, though, before embarking upon anything. Education on both will help you .

Education on both would benefit many in this forum, too, I imagine.

psuLemon

honestly, asking that around here is a loaded question.

you'll basically get two camps of answers... one, that cutting out any macronutrient is unnecessary, "just eat less", "everything in moderation", "only under a doctor's orders", etc. two, that reducing carbs down to a minimum (as from veggies and fiber) is fine and is a proven diet method that works fine.

hint: on this particular part of the forums, camp one outweighs camp two, pitchforks and torches and all. but there are a few groups specifically dedicated to the low-carb ways of eating where you'll find more support and probably more information if you've got questions.

personally, i'm in camp 2. i prefer to low-carb, and i've seen my own health benefits from it.

It is my opinion that the so called "pitch folks" come out because the majority of long term users don't support fads (this includes paleo, cleanses, vegeterian, etc..). I do fully understand, just like with every diet, there is a lifestyle component that many newbies do not consider. I can't tell you how many people I have see on the forums and IRL switch to a lifestyle because others had success without understand what is really required. In fact, I know several vegetarians that were hospitalized from malnutrition because they didn't understand what is required.

It is my perception, the OP would be using this as a fad because her friends have had success and may not be fully aware or have the knowledge of what will be required to make it successful long term. If the OP is ok with removing foods from her diet or in some cases, entire food groups, then it would be a good tool. Personally, there are advantages to both a moderate approach and a low carb approach. Low carb can provide higher levels of satiety, which will make it easier to sustain a deficit. Moderation will allow you to eat all foods you enjoy. Personally, I cannot do low carb because my workouts struggle when carbs dip by 200g. I also find that I tend to binge when I eliminate foods I enjoy from my diet.

With either diet, you have to educate yourself (which will take time) to be able to sustain long term. Is one better than the other.. nope.. What it comes down to, is which diet/lifestyle can you sustain long term.

One man/woman's "fad" is another man/woman's WOE, MFP Moderator.
WTG being supportive and inclusive, MFP Moderator.

I don't believe there is anything in the rules that says that as soon as you become a moderator you must give up all opinions.

I think this was a well written post, simply pointing out that whatever approach you wish to take, it is important that you educate yourself on the upsides as well as the downsides, and learn to mitigate the downsides. To take the most often cited and extreme example, someone blundering into veganism without learning about vitamin B12 and where to get it, could get very, very sick.

You are correct, just because I am a mod, doesn't mean I can't respond to a thread and provide an opinion. If I had to do that, i would have never become a mod. Everything I do for this community is free of charge because I have believe in helping others, which I have done for years.

psuLemon

one of the things i've noticed is that complex concept diets, like any of the low-carb ilk, vegan, whole foods, etc., require more focus, more education, and are going to be harder than what most people want to deal with. a lot of people just want to take the path of least resistance... which is understandable because that's part of being human. i can't count how many times i've seen "why do you want to do X? just do Y and you'll be fine", with "Y" being some variation on "calories in < calories out = weight loss".

educating ourselves is hard, but i fail to understand why people are so opposed to it. straight-up calorie reduction doesn't work for me because i've got issues beyond just losing weight to deal with, and i know i'm not the only one. and let's be honest here... just because something is labeled a "fad" doesn't make it invalid, it only makes it new to the current population. once upon a time, christianity was a fad... books were fads... bathing was a fad... the internet was a fad.

I 100% agree with you. For some people, such as my wife, low carb is a requirement. She has medical conditions that come with carb and gluten issues. I also understand that some people need to go a bit more extreme to mentally get into the diet and fitness game. Ultimately, people need to decide which lifestyle is best and which one they will adhere to easiest. Unfortunately, there are people from both sides of this conversation that have rather extreme views and try to push that onto others and if anyone suggest to evaluate a different approach outside of their own, things tend to go sour.

PatchEFog

...Unfortunately, there are people from both sides of this conversation that have rather extreme views and try to push that onto others and if anyone suggest to evaluate a different approach outside of their own, things tend to go sour.

Yes, when people call other people's WOE a 'fad" when it isn't, that's counter-productive to conversation.
But this is OT.
I emailed the OP directly because I anticipated this type of crazy bias, as per the usual. She indicated she would be sticking with carbs and sugar - so I left it at that because I respect her decision and wished her well on her weight loss journey.
Too bad people are unable to be respectful of the decisions of others and instead have to tar them as a "fad" just because they disagree.

baconslave

...Unfortunately, there are people from both sides of this conversation that have rather extreme views and try to push that onto others and if anyone suggest to evaluate a different approach outside of their own, things tend to go sour.

Yes, when people call other people's WOE a 'fad" when it isn't, that's counter-productive to conversation.
But this is OT.
I emailed the OP directly because I anticipated this type of crazy bias, as per the usual. She indicated she would be sticking with carbs and sugar - so I left it at that because I respect her decision and wished her well on her weight loss journey.
Too bad people are unable to be respectful of the decisions of others and instead have to tar them as a "fad" just because they disagree.

Thanks for the update.

It is sad. They expect people to have respect for their choices, but hypocritically disrespect others' choices.

I say, to each their own, regardless of which side of the fence they live on. But that's what makes me a misfit.

PatchEFog

...But that's what makes me a misfit.

You and me both, though the official tar name is more like "silly, extreme fad-following misfit."
Or something equally irrelevant, inaccurate and insulting.

SueInAz

Nutritional theory is finally coming around on the fact that the high carb/low fat diet the government has been touting for years doesn't work and wasn't based on real scientific evidence. Not that a study is needed because all you have to do is look at how overweight and sick our population has become in the last half century to see the results of the recomendation for that diet....

There have been several articles in the news lately about a study the National Health Institute conducted which shows that a low carb/higher fat diet is better for weight loss AND general health. I think we're going to eventually see a general swinging around to recommendations for this type of diet or at least less of an emphasis on limiting fat and substituting with carbs. Here's the study information from the NIH website.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_148148.html

Summerfit321

Im sorry but I personally could never do that. I usually have a scoup or two of icecream each night. I lose weight just fine.

I think that that's a great approach...

monicastricker9

It depends on what you are eliminating from the diet. While it is not possible to remove all sugar, because for one it occurs naturally in the fruits and some veggies that we eat. In regards to carbs, the elmination process should include processed, boxed white carbs, because they have no nutritional value. Stick to whole grain varieties in as natural form as possible, brown rice, quinoa, green veggies etc. I good book to read is the clean eating diet by Tosca Reno. The book walks you through how to clean out the processed junk and move to a more clean, raw eating plan. Its about lifestyle choices and long term change, not fad diets.