Is what he said correct about Carbs?
Replies
-
Thanks, I'll take a look at these when I'm not supposed to be working.
0 -
Okay, couldn't help but take a look at the first one. Interesting, small sample, but then it's pretty much impossible to do a metabolic ward study of 10,000 dudes, so fair enough.
Okay, so no apparent metabolic advantage shown in that study, what's interesting is that the HFLC group refused food... wow... a bunch of fat dudes, on a diet and actually turning down food... as a former pretty damn fat dude, now a just somewhat fat dude, I can say that eating my previous HCLF diet I would never turn down food, in fact, I could eat a great deal before my body told me to stop. Certainly supports the argument that HFLC diets result in less hunger.0 -
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
I have Celiac disease -- most of the carbs in that picture could kill me. LOL0 -
Just my two cents. I eat no processed food, no wheat in any form at all. My only carbs take from fruits and vegetables, and mostly good fats as main fuel. I just checked and have no more than 50g / day. I can't see any reason to have more carbs. It works for me, I feel much better that at the times of bread, cakes and so on. I don't miss them. Most people don't understand and can't imagine how I can live without them.
Everyone is different, take your way and be happy !0 -
I do agree with that and said that exact thing a few post up. However there is a metabolic advantage when it comes to macro division and when a higher protein diet is compared to the SAD or high carb diet (60-65%) the higher protein diet does seem to produce better weight loss. I think this is where a lot of the confusion started a decade ago regarding these comparisons. The low carb diet was the template for those comparisons with that high carb diet and somehow the data got lost in the translation. It wasn't actually the low carb diet that facilitated that observed metabolic advantage but the higher protein content in the low carb diet. anyway from there it was extrapulated that if the low carb diet was better then it was a ketogenic diet by default. The problem with this theory is in what mediated that metabolic advantage, which was thermodynamics. The thermic effect of protein which is fairly well known now, facilitated that metabolic advantage cpompared to a high carb with much of it coming from refined carbs aka the SAD diet. Getting back to the ketogenic diet and the myth that seems to have been perpetuated that it will burn fat as an energy source and somehow will allow for more weight loss is flawed simply because of the law of thermodynamics. The ketogenic diet is generally very low in carbs and high in fat and when compared to a diet that is equally as high in protein, that advantage I spoke of disappears and your right, in ward studies there clearly shows no advantage. But if you replace some of the calories coming from fat, which has no thermic effect to speak of and replace them with more carbs, like fiberous veg TEF can be increased simply because of the differences in TEF between fat and vegetables. Basically any higher protein diet will regardless of carb content shows that the ketogenic diet is not necessary if one is thinking it does somehow facilitate more weight loss compared to any other diet. imo
Another issues you see in a lot of studies comparing LC and HC diets is they're assumption about what constitutes low carb. So various studies use LC to label very different carb intake levels.
Well, my own n=1 suggests there is no metabolic advantage but I've just been keeping an open mind about it. Personally I don't aim for a ketogenic diet, just eliminate refined carbs, generally I aim for 50 - 70g, although I've done periods of consistently < 50g a day.
I've read about the thermogenic effect of protein although it's supposed to be fairly small, of course, it's still a metabolic advantage.0 -
Geez, this post is still going on:noway:0
-
Geez, this post is still going on:noway:
Better than starting a new one.0 -
Me and one my friend were talkin about how she recently(over the summer) lost 30 lbs W/O EXERCISING! When she told me that my mouth dropped. Then this guy who put on a great deal of muscle in the past 1-2 years told me that if you cut out all the carbs in your diet you'd loose a great amount of weight because all the fat on your body is carbs. I'm not very bright in the food and nutrition departmment so was he right? If I stop eating things like white rice, bread, pasta, etc I loose a bunch of weight.:huh:
yep.working for me!!!!0 -
Yes, you can totally survive without any grain products, any rice, any cereals AT ALL.
To deny that is to deny over a million years of human evolution.
Is it hard? Maybe.
Most of us "low carbers" actually eat more vegetables than grain eaters. We get more nutrients for the same amount of calories.
Calorie for calorie, vegetables tend to have far more fiber and other nutrients, period.
Anything a grain can do, vegetables can do better, with a heckuva lot less carbs.
If you want an EASY way to cut calories, cut all grains, cereals, sugars, rice, faux grains like qinoa, and eat more vegetables.
You will be shocked at just how high the mountain of green, orange, and red can get on your plate with lush plants, for next to no calories. And your body will be just fine.
People seriously need to stop thinking you will go ketogenic just because you do not eat grain. Grains are not, nor have they ever been an "essential nutrient". In fact carbs have not, nor have they ever been, an "essential nutrient" in medicine.0 -
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
Huge difference between carrots which are natural, and highly processed pasta, whole grains or otherwise, and breads, that would not exist without extensive processing. In fact, you cannot even really eat those foods without destroying and rebuilding them first. You can however, eat a carrot or banana just the way you find it.
Real food does not come with calorie labels, and with the exception of a few tubers, most real food is considered low carb, and people think that makes it somehow lacking, so they have to supplement it with food that would not existing without some form of mechanical processing.0 -
People seriously need to stop thinking you will go ketogenic just because you do not eat grain. Grains are not, nor have they ever been an "essential nutrient". In fact carbs have not, nor have they ever been, an "essential nutrient" in medicine.
By the same vein, I think people seriously should stop thinking that the grains, or even any deitary carbs, not being essential means anything to someone who doesn't have a problem with eating carbs. My homemade pasta may not be biochemically essential, but it's darn tasty, and hasn't hampered my weight loss a bit.
It's all about the individual.0 -
Yup, depends on someones belief system and of course there's always the comparing of extremes that never actually get us very far in definitive answers.
People seriously need to stop thinking you will go ketogenic just because you do not eat grain. Grains are not, nor have they ever been an "essential nutrient". In fact carbs have not, nor have they ever been, an "essential nutrient" in medicine.
By the same vein, I think people seriously should stop thinking that the grains, or even any deitary carbs, not being essential means anything to someone who doesn't have a problem with eating carbs. My homemade pasta may not be biochemically essential, but it's darn tasty, and hasn't hampered my weight loss a bit.
It's all about the individual.0 -
Carbs. They'll kill ya.
/sarcasm
Huge difference between carrots which are natural, and highly processed pasta, whole grains or otherwise, and breads, that would not exist without extensive processing. In fact, you cannot even really eat those foods without destroying and rebuilding them first. You can however, eat a carrot or banana just the way you find it.
Real food does not come with calorie labels, and with the exception of a few tubers, most real food is considered low carb, and people think that makes it somehow lacking, so they have to supplement it with food that would not existing without some form of mechanical processing.
LULZ @ your definition of "highly processed"
Are you in the habit of taking bites out of live animals? Because the process of butchering is MUCH more involved than the process of grinding flour.0 -
sounds like the atkins diet...
i think its hard because you're not allowed to eat ANY carbs! (youre not allowed to eat anything sweet, you might get cravings) it only works if you eat proteins and fats ONLY. this is really unhealthy. you can do it to lose the last 5 pounds. but i wouldnt do it for a long time. its not good for your body.
I really wish you would read the book before replying about a plan you know nothing about.
I lost 90 pounds on Atkins and was able to keep them off for YEARS before life got in the way and old habits crept back in. I failed the plan, the plan didn't fail me. You don't only eat protein and fats. You eat lots and lots of vegetables which have CARBS! It is extremely healthy if done by the book. You might want to get some facts straight before spreading such rumors. It's how the Atkins diet got the bad rap as it is because people haven't read the book or understood how it worked so therefore its bad for you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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