Low Calories, or Low Carbs? What is better.....
Replies
-
I avoid sugars and refined grains, as those are empty carbs and calories, and actually, they increase my appetite. I eat fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains.
I keep my calories under control as well. So you have to watch both, but make sure you eat enough complex carbs to sustain yourself.
Sounds like a fab plan to me
0 -
So what you're saying is, carbs spiking your insulin and raising your blood sugar is evil, but protein spiking your insulin and raising your blood sugar (through the release of glucagon, which really has nothing specifically to do with protein, and is actually an automated response to blood sugar dropping in general) is ok? Do you not understand how that doesn't make sense? Both ways spike insulin and raise blood sugar.
Yep, I think that is what they are saying. I actually don't think they are both the same because when you eat carbohydrate you can control the amount and type but when your body initiates gluconeogenesis, which is essentially a starvation response, it often creates much more than you really need (which is why type 1 diabetics who don't have a bed time snack will often wake up with high sugar levels rather than the low you would expect). You will actually have much better blood sugar control if you eat regular meals containing regulated amounts of complex carbohydrates, preferably low GI than if you don't eat carbohydrates at all.0 -
I just wanted to quote this from Acg67. It seems this entire concept went totally ignored by the "pro-Taubes" side in this debate. If the insulin response from carbs are to blame for all the evils, then why doesn't the insulin response from protein cause just as many evils? Protein can cause the same, and in some cases, an even higher insulin spike than carbs. Doesn't that basically invalidate Taubes' entire theory?
No it does not, because the other contributing factors are being conveniently ignored. While high protein foods cause a spike in insulin, they do not have the corresponding spike in blood sugar levels.
Insulin by itself is a necessary chemical and not bad, and does its job by storing nutrients, and is a vital process. The other part of the process when protein is eaten is not shown in the argument is that the body also releases another checmical that has a contrary effect to insulin, glucagon. Protein rich foods prompt a release of glucagon while carb rich foods do not.Glucagon raises blood sugar levels in part to allow for absorption of amino acids in the liver and their subsequent transformation there to glucose. In our evolution, we developed the capacity to make what we required out of what was available.
So what you're saying is, carbs spiking your insulin and raising your blood sugar is evil, but protein spiking your insulin and raising your blood sugar (through the release of glucagon, which really has nothing specifically to do with protein, and is actually an automated response to blood sugar dropping in general) is ok? Do you not understand how that doesn't make sense? Both ways spike insulin and raise blood sugar.
Not to mention you're completely ignoring the fact that the body's response to food changes completely when you eat different macros together. Taubes theory only works at all, from a clinical standpoint, in a few studies,. if you only eat one macro at a time and let them disgust completely before eating the next one, which is just about impossible in a normal diet. Every food has a mix of macros in it, which completely changes the way things work.
The human body is not as simplistic as Taubes likes to make it out to be. Also, if Taubes is so right in all of his theories, and knows all the reasons why people are overweight, and his theory of how to never be overweight is so perfect and correct, WHY IS HE OVERWEIGHT? Taubes is a journalist, and as a journalist, it's his entire job to spin whatever topic he's writing abut to get you to believe whatever it is he wants you to believe. That way,people keep buying his books, and he keeps making money, real facts be damned.
Taubes overweight?
http://i.imgur.com/zCynO.jpg
From last march I think. Doesn't appear that way to me.0 -
I disagree with the above posts saying watching calories is better for a multitude of reasons. I suggest reading the book "Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It" by science journalist Gary Taubes to understand why. Amazing book that really opened my eyes and has helped me to lose 47 pounds in 6 months so far.
Awesome book! Opened my eyes as well and I can't believe the weight loss and success from low carb. It boils down to doing whatever works for you. I have been doing keto (high fat, moderate protein, low carb) and I find it easy and I don't actually feel like I am dieting. Not everything works for everyone. If you don't see results... change it up.
you obviously did not read through this thread then if you are calling the nonsense contained in Why We Get Fat awesome. Some people in this thread clearly posted relevant studies and other things debunking Taubes' nonsense.The human body is not as simplistic as Taubes likes to make it out to be. Also, if Taubes is so right in all of his theories, and knows all the reasons why people are overweight, and his theory of how to never be overweight is so perfect and correct, WHY IS HE OVERWEIGHT? Taubes is a journalist, and as a journalist, it's his entire job to spin whatever topic he's writing abut to get you to believe whatever it is he wants you to believe. That way,people keep buying his books, and he keeps making money, real facts be damned.
not only that, but he actually makes people more ignorant about nutrition
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat0 -
0 -
I disagree with the above posts saying watching calories is better for a multitude of reasons. I suggest reading the book "Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It" by science journalist Gary Taubes to understand why. Amazing book that really opened my eyes and has helped me to lose 47 pounds in 6 months so far.
Awesome book! Opened my eyes as well and I can't believe the weight loss and success from low carb. It boils down to doing whatever works for you. I have been doing keto (high fat, moderate protein, low carb) and I find it easy and I don't actually feel like I am dieting. Not everything works for everyone. If you don't see results... change it up.
I was just stating what works for me and apparently many others after looking through this thread. I don't care what the naysayers say. I will ALWAYS choose what works best for me. I am not a zealot like some and I don't care if I change any opinions. Do what works for you!
you obviously did not read through this thread then if you are calling the nonsense contained in Why We Get Fat awesome. Some people in this thread clearly posted relevant studies and other things debunking Taubes' nonsense.The human body is not as simplistic as Taubes likes to make it out to be. Also, if Taubes is so right in all of his theories, and knows all the reasons why people are overweight, and his theory of how to never be overweight is so perfect and correct, WHY IS HE OVERWEIGHT? Taubes is a journalist, and as a journalist, it's his entire job to spin whatever topic he's writing abut to get you to believe whatever it is he wants you to believe. That way,people keep buying his books, and he keeps making money, real facts be damned.
not only that, but he actually makes people more ignorant about nutrition
"If you restrict only carbohydrates, you can always eat more protein and fat if you feel the urge, since they have no effect on fat accumulation"
Location 2519 Kindle edition of Why We Get Fat
"But protein and fat don't make us fat-only the carbohydrates do-so there is no reason to curtail them in any way"
Location 3064 Why We Get Fat0 -
are all the threads on this subject like this here?
how about this- if you are accomplishing your goals on a restricted cal diet, then great- that is what works for your body. please continue doing such and sharing and helping others to have the same success as you.
however there will be some ppl for whom the simple cals in/cals out premise doesn't work. if you gave that a FAIR (this means at the very least over a month, not 3 days) amount of time and achieved nothing then it is time to explore other options starting with a trip to your dr for a comprehensive work up. if the usual weight loss formula is not working for you then you might want to use that as a clue that 'something' is off w/ your metabolism and go find out what, carbs processing *might* be an issue for you.
there are far too many "help! not losing!" and "what am i doing wrong?" threads every. single. day. here for there not to be a flaw in the formula for SOME ppl. they all can't be idiots that cannot weigh or measure food and calculate the calories correctly, they all can't possess enough intelligence not to realize that MFP's exercise burns are wildly off. and they all can't be in 'starvation mode' (sigh), esp those that never lost anything in the first place on the formula. if the formula works for you - then great~ shout it from the rooftops, you have every right to be ecstatic about your success.... however if the same formula is not working for the guy next to you then turning to them and saying "well you're doing it wrong" is categorically UNhelpful. if you are not here because you need help or here to be helpful to the next person....maybe reexamine why you are on this website at all.
maybe it is just me, but i find the lack of understanding and unwillingness to possibly believe that anyone's metabolism might be operating outside the norm an the blame placing back onto the OPs that start all those "help!" threads by some members here distasteful and unproductive. if we all were the same then we all would have the same conditions and dz's or lack there of and the world of medicine would barely need to exist.
imho there is a reason why it is not a statistical anomaly that the overwhelming majority of type II diabetics are overweight or obese. there is a metabolic alteration there that we, as a community on a web site designed to help ppl get to a healthier body mass, should try to be more mindful of. there are probably many ppl here that are in that pre-diabetic state and if they are having problems rather than the 'eat more calories!' 'eat less calories!' exercise more!' 'exercise less!' contradictory feedback the first suggestion should be: 'have you had a recent work up w/ your doctor, esp focusing on endocrinological issues? your lack of success points to that being first step here. let us know how it went, good luck!' see? far more helpful than than the link wars, pseudo science, half truths, and warped physiological statements (ex: "ketones are acids. you'll die. haha" hmm..no. i think maybe you confused dietary ketosis with diabetic ketoacidosis) that are all just NOT helpful for the posters looking for help.
all i'm asking for is a little less10 page threads were everyone is just trying to prove their own reality and how utterly brilliant [sic] they are and instead just some simple logic~ if it ain't broke don't fix it and if it is not working then something might be broke and exploring that concept w/ your dr. is by far more important than anything anyone can recommend over the internet . that's all.
geez that was a waste of my time i'm sure, excuse my idealism ..makes me think we all thought mr spock was our childhood hero and value logic above all else. i gotta get to gym before they close. continue on! laters!0 -
Well said, anyonebutmeha!0
-
+1 The best answer for me.I disagree with the above posts saying watching calories is better for a multitude of reasons. I suggest reading the book "Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It" by science journalist Gary Taubes to understand why. Amazing book that really opened my eyes and has helped me to lose 47 pounds in 6 months so far.
^ only read the above book if you want your head to be filled with nonsense (other then the section on the lipid hypothesis)
whats your advice....? curious!
make sure you are getting adequate protein and fat each day (a minimum of approx 1g of protein per lb of lbm and .35-.45g of fat per lb of bodyweight) then fill in the rest of your remaining cals how you please. focus should be on nutrient dense whole foods, but no reason you can't fit treats into your everyday diet0 -
BUMP0
-
Lots of Taubes bashing here, but despite the incompleteness of his work, it is far better than most of the nonsense spewed by the mainstream that excess calorie consumption causes obesity! At least if you listen to Taubes, you can ignore calories completely and lose weight!
Great story can be found here:
http://www.waroninsulin.com0 -
Good info on that site. It's encouraging to see that they are also forming a non profit to do more research in the area and lend more weight to the arguments. I believe what they are saying to be correct and with time and research science will prove it as well, especially when considering that most of the current advice is based off of the Lipid Hypothesis, which was a sham from the beginning, introducing twisted and fabricated data to fit Dr. Keys' view.0
-
Lots of Taubes bashing here, but despite the incompleteness of his work, it is far better than most of the nonsense spewed by the mainstream that excess calorie consumption causes obesity! At least if you listen to Taubes, you can ignore calories completely and lose weight!
Great story can be found here:
http://www.waroninsulin.com
Excess calorie consumption doesn't cause obesity? Let me guess, I can eat 500,000 calories a day of fat and protein, and as long as I don't eat a single gram of carbs, I can't gain weight, is that it? It's mind boggling the things people will believe...0 -
Excess calorie consumption doesn't cause obesity? Let me guess, I can eat 500,000 calories a day of fat and protein, and as long as I don't eat a single gram of carbs, I can't gain weight, is that it? It's mind boggling the things people will believe...
Except for nobody is making that claim. You obviously know nothing of Taube's work if you don't understand what I just said.
Excess calorie consumption is CAUSED by hormones in the body, which ultimately lead to overeating and fat gain. Heck the body's desire to remain obese drives even more overeating.
Taube's argument in a nutshell is that obesity is a hormonally-driven problem, not a psychological problem. And to add, he believes that the macro-nutrients ingested into the body have far more effect on metabolism than mainstream nutritional science tells us. That's all. People want to say his claims violate the laws of thermodynamics but they don't at all. Worse case he is wrong about exactly what happens to excess fat. Bottom line though is his work helps people lose weight, even if the science is incomplete or even flawed.0 -
True, some people have hormonal problems, they lack leptin, which means they never feel full, so they keep eating. However, that only applies to a very small part of the population. There are many reasons for people to overeat, not just hormonal problems. In fact, in most studies, the overeating causes the hormonal imbalances, it isn't the hormonal imbalance causing the overeating.
It's like saying that sneezing is what caused your cold, rather than the cold is what caused your sneezing.0 -
True, some people have hormonal problems, they lack leptin, which means they never feel full, so they keep eating. However, that only applies to a very small part of the population. There are many reasons for people to overeat, not just hormonal problems. In fact, in most studies, the overeating causes the hormonal imbalances, it isn't the hormonal imbalance causing the overeating.
It's like saying that sneezing is what caused your cold, rather than the cold is what caused your sneezing.
Except for one problem. There is a large community of low-carb dieters who went from having no self control on a high-carb diet, to eating to full satiety and losing weight on a low-carb diet.
Taubes think insulin is the culprit. Acg believes his studies refute that claim. I think its not as simple as either of those folks think, but I think insulin drives the obesity epidemic.
Then there is Taube's belief that an insulin response is necessary to store dietary fat. Well he also neglects to explain much about the insulin response from protein. So it could be the reason people can't eat unlimited fat without gaining weight, is because of the insulin response from protein, even when carbs are sufficiently low. But either way, most people on low-carb diets don't need to worry about this because they will stop eating automatically before ending up with a caloric surplus.
And Taubes' explanation for the energy equation is this. If someone can consume 5000 calories and not gain fat, then they must be expending 5000 calories (or excreting whatever they are not expending). Now is it likely someone who isn't exercising like a madman can expend that many calories in a day? Probably not but I think his work isn't complete in this area.0 -
You don't excrete energy. It's either used or stored. The human body has evolved to store fat. It will not just eliminate or excrete energy for no reason. It's either used, or stored for later use. The body can also store fat regardless of insulin levels. Fat storage isn't a one time event, it's constantly happening 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The body is storing fat, retrieving fat, utilizing it for daily activity, and putting extra or recycled fats back into storage. Insulin is not a fat storage device, it's a glucose transporter, transporting nutrients from the digestive tract through the blood stream to where they need to go. Fat storage is different, as energy consumed doesn't go directly from the digestive tract to fat storage, it doesn't work that way. Fat is actually transported and stored by lipoproteins, not insulin. Insulin's job isn't to store fat, it's job (well, one of its many jobs) is to turn off the fat burning process when food has been eaten, any food, carb, protein, or fat. The reason is because food is the primary energy source, so once food is eaten, the body automatically uses that for energy until it is gone, or until all energy stores are full, at which point the liver will kick into conversion mode, using gluconeogenesis to convert extra protein and fat into glucose, then converting that, along with any other unused glucose, into triglycerides, which are then carried off to storage by various lipoproteins.
Also, keep in mind, before the advent of agriculture, the human species evolved eating maybe once a day, or every other day, depending on availability of food. So it was a cycle of massive eating and fat storage, followed by a day or two of fasting and fat burning. It's one theory as to why it takes so long for the satiety signal to reach the brain, we evolved to overeat intentionally, in order to fuel ourselves enough to stay alive until the next meal.0 -
I have to say that I have done a lot of low carb diets (Atkins, Dukan...etc) and have done really well on them. I lost weight quickly and feel great because I do retain a lot of water, so they work for me.
HOWEVER, I find them purely a short term fix and I am miserable when I am on them for any length of time. When I come off them I put on even more weight and am now at my heaviest. I think a lot of this is down to lots of 'last suppers' followed by fad diets that don't last long. Going from one extreme of eating to the other is really not good for the mind or body.
I am now focusing on having a normal healthy diet solely using MyFitnessPal that doesn't forbid me anything, as long as I count it as part of my daily calories. If I am going out for a meal or something, then I make sure I do the exercise to earn more calories. I've been doing it just over three weeks and feel the best I ever have, and what makes me feel euphoric is the fact I finally feel in control of my eating. I am rarely hungry and have only twice gone (very slightly) over my calorie intake because I don't feel the need to
) 0 -
You don't excrete energy. It's either used or stored. The human body has evolved to store fat. It will not just eliminate or excrete energy for no reason. It's either used, or stored for later use. The body can also store fat regardless of insulin levels. Fat storage isn't a one time event, it's constantly happening 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The body is storing fat, retrieving fat, utilizing it for daily activity, and putting extra or recycled fats back into storage. Insulin is not a fat storage device, it's a glucose transporter, transporting nutrients from the digestive tract through the blood stream to where they need to go. Fat storage is different, as energy consumed doesn't go directly from the digestive tract to fat storage, it doesn't work that way. Fat is actually transported and stored by lipoproteins, not insulin. Insulin's job isn't to store fat, it's job (well, one of its many jobs) is to turn off the fat burning process when food has been eaten, any food, carb, protein, or fat. The reason is because food is the primary energy source, so once food is eaten, the body automatically uses that for energy until it is gone, or until all energy stores are full, at which point the liver will kick into conversion mode, using gluconeogenesis to convert extra protein and fat into glucose, then converting that, along with any other unused glucose, into triglycerides, which are then carried off to storage by various lipoproteins.
Also, keep in mind, before the advent of agriculture, the human species evolved eating maybe once a day, or every other day, depending on availability of food. So it was a cycle of massive eating and fat storage, followed by a day or two of fasting and fat burning. It's one theory as to why it takes so long for the satiety signal to reach the brain, we evolved to overeat intentionally, in order to fuel ourselves enough to stay alive until the next meal.
I think that's a reasonable point of view to have. It doesn't answer questions for me that Gary Taubes seems to better address (even if they turn out to me wrong). I honestly don't think too much when he talks about the calories IN and calories OUT being so dependent on one another. I think both IN and OUT are largely driven by the body's metabolic health, but I don't think OUT will always approach the amount IN just because IN becomes very large. Instead like you said, too much IN will be associated with alot of fat storage.
I find it curious that overeating by me and many others who succeed on low-carb diets is directly related to our carbohydrate intake. If its a matter of carbs being less satious than protein and fat, why is that? What's the science behind that? Why does it affect so many people, but at the same time not affect so many people. I think whether its insulin or some other hormone linked to carb intake, then Gary's case against carbs still makes sense. If its psychological, why do I have a psychological addiction to carbs only?
Also I can't help but think about all that human civilizations that didn't have access to an abundance of carbs. In the winter time plants don't grow, so they must have went extended periods of time in a ketogenic state.0 -
I have to say that I have done a lot of low carb diets (Atkins, Dukan...etc) and have done really well on them. I lost weight quickly and feel great because I do retain a lot of water, so they work for me.
HOWEVER, I find them purely a short term fix and I am miserable when I am on them for any length of time. When I come off them I put on even more weight and am now at my heaviest. I think a lot of this is down to lots of 'last suppers' followed by fad diets that don't last long. Going from one extreme of eating to the other is really not good for the mind or body.
I am now focusing on having a normal healthy diet solely using MyFitnessPal that doesn't forbid me anything, as long as I count it as part of my daily calories. If I am going out for a meal or something, then I make sure I do the exercise to earn more calories. I've been doing it just over three weeks and feel the best I ever have, and what makes me feel euphoric is the fact I finally feel in control of my eating. I am rarely hungry and have only twice gone (very slightly) over my calorie intake because I don't feel the need to)
Sounds like you didn't do the diet properly by only going low-carb for 2 weeks to clear the system/break the cycle and then gradually add back in more carbs until you find the sweet spot, i.e. the number of carbs you can eat daily that allows you to continue to lose weight and feel satisfied. For some people that might only be 50 grams/carb day and, for others, that might be 150 or whatever.
Don't blame the eating plan when you didn't do it correctly and, of course, extreme eating trends will lead to yo-yo weight loss/weight gain situations.
I am in complete control of my eating as long as I keep my carbs to less than 100 grams/day, feel best when I keep them closer to 80, have unlimited energy for exercise, chronically good moods rather than roller-coaster emotions, feel satisfied, am never hungry, and am losing without feeling deprived.
Of course, what works for me may not work for you because we're all different. Some of us have more sensitivity to carbs than others so that's to be expected. So your experience doesn't make it true for all just as mine doesn't.0 -
Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories. I'm finding that my body does best when I have 150g of carbs a day or less which is low in comparison to what I was clocking before (250+), but is not at all low by low carb dieting standards.
I still feel like I have plenty of energy, and I still get to have the bread, etc that I LOVE. What's more, I usually end up with 1500 or less calories for the day (my goal is 1590). It's a win win so far as I'm concerned.0 -
Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories.<snip>
Not necessarily. Before discovering lower-carb eating, I would go on diets and weigh/measure/track my food intake, go on 1000 or 1200 calorie per day diets, lose weight but be starving and miserable the entire time. I can now easily stick to 1000 or 1200 calories/day if I wanted to without the least bit of hunger or cravings. The only difference is I now do full-fat/lower carb eating vs. low-fat/higher carb eating.
Should add, before someone jumps on me, that I have recently started adding back in eating exercise calories and raised my daily calorie limit a bit due to all the wonderful things I have learned here about eating in a way that fuels your metabolism rather than shutting it down. But eating lower-carb means that I can eat so much more good food to achieve this than I could eat if I added in more carbs.
And if I do have a day where I go over my personal carb threshold, I start getting feelings of hunger and cravings as well as numerous other symptoms that continually prove to me that my body just doesn't like too many carbs. This occurs even if the carbs that put me over my personal limit are complex carbs.
Anyway, bottomline, at the same caloric intake levels, more carbs in the diet makes me famished, less carbs makes me satisfied.0 -
Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories.<snip>
Not necessarily. Before discovering lower-carb eating, I would go on diets and weigh/measure/track my food intake, go on 1000 or 1200 calorie per day diets, lose weight but be starving and miserable the entire time. I can now easily stick to 1000 or 1200 calories/day if I wanted to without the least bit of hunger or cravings. The only difference is I now do full-fat/lower carb eating vs. low-fat/higher carb eating.
Should add, before someone jumps on me, that I have recently started adding back in eating exercise calories and raised my daily calorie limit a bit due to all the wonderful things I have learned here about eating in a way that fuels your metabolism rather than shutting it down. But eating lower-carb means that I can eat so much more good food to achieve this than I could eat if I added in more carbs.
And if I do have a day where I go over my personal carb threshold, I start getting feelings of hunger and cravings as well as numerous other symptoms that continually prove to me that my body just doesn't like too many carbs. This occurs even if the carbs that put me over my personal limit are complex carbs.
Anyway, bottomline, at the same caloric intake levels, more carbs in the diet makes me famished, less carbs makes me satisfied.
I don't think you said anything different from what I said, so I'm not sure what you are correcting me on. I do eat a lower carb higher fat diet. I do not eat low carb and low fat. My days work out to something around 35% carbs, 35% fat, 30% protein.
Considering how calorie dense high carb foods can be, it's simple logic that if you try to cut your carbs you will inevitable cut your calories.
ETA: fixed typos and corrected my percentages.0 -
I just wish one thing and, if someone can answer this question in a way that makes sense to me, I'll back out of these low-carb threads.
What is unhealthy about eating lower-carb? In a typical day I eat:
1st breakfast: 1 T of peanut butter (because that's all I can stomach first thing in the AM but I'm mindful of getting something on the stomach after fasting from dinner as I rarely feel like eating later in the evening).
Real breakfast: 2-3 egg omelet with some vegetables, a bit of cheese, and, occasionally, bits of meat.
AM snack might be any of the following (not all of them, obviously): nuts, seeds, hard-boiled egg, 1/2 apple or other small portion of some other fruit with a bit of nut butter or a small chunk of cheese, just some cheese, 1-2 graham crackers with a small smear of butter, yogurt
Lunch might be any of the following, again not all of them: soup and salad, just a big salad filled with a wide variety of vegetables and nuts or seeds and some protein source (hard-boiled eggs, sliced meat, and/or cheese), open-faced sandwich one 100% whole-grain bread with a bit of salad and/or fruit on the side, or heating up leftovers from last night's dinner (see dinner for ideas of what that might be), some kind of lean protein with a salad and/or fruit on the side. Salad dressing is usually carefully-measured for portion control Ranch or just plain mayonnaise as I just can't stand oil/vinegar or some of the other options.
PM snack: See AM snack
Dinner: Several times a week we do a protein/vegetable stir-fry using a wide variety of vegetables and proteins and using either olive oil, butter, or wine and various seasonings so it's always different and doesn't become boring. Other nights are a protein with a large salad sometimes with a serving of steamed vegetable as well, now and then I might make brown rice or quinoa on the side but keep the serving size small for myself (my husband can tolerate a larger serving), occasionally I might add a small bit of potato but I usually only do this a few times a month if I'm just really craving one (I grew up on them so I do occasionally miss the flavor). Again, salad dressing is usually carefully-measured for portion control Ranch or just plain mayonnaise as I just can't stand oil/vinegar or some of the other options.
Eve snack: Rare to have these but, if I do, it's because I have calories left in my day to fill and I'm feeling a bit hungry. This might be any of the things listed for AM/PM snacks or, if I'm feeling like a splurge, a couple of cookies or a small serving of ice cream or some other treat.
Now and then, I do have a glass of milk at meals or snacks but I don't do this daily. I will also occasionally have some juice, usually one of the V8 fruit/veg drinks.
This is an ideal day and I feel great when I do it and lose steadily. Of course, not every day is ideal.
Anyway, if someone can tell me what is so unhealthy about eating this way, I'd love to hear it.0 -
Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories.<snip>
Not necessarily. Before discovering lower-carb eating, I would go on diets and weigh/measure/track my food intake, go on 1000 or 1200 calorie per day diets, lose weight but be starving and miserable the entire time. I can now easily stick to 1000 or 1200 calories/day if I wanted to without the least bit of hunger or cravings. The only difference is I now do full-fat/lower carb eating vs. low-fat/higher carb eating.
Should add, before someone jumps on me, that I have recently started adding back in eating exercise calories and raised my daily calorie limit a bit due to all the wonderful things I have learned here about eating in a way that fuels your metabolism rather than shutting it down. But eating lower-carb means that I can eat so much more good food to achieve this than I could eat if I added in more carbs.
And if I do have a day where I go over my personal carb threshold, I start getting feelings of hunger and cravings as well as numerous other symptoms that continually prove to me that my body just doesn't like too many carbs. This occurs even if the carbs that put me over my personal limit are complex carbs.
Anyway, bottomline, at the same caloric intake levels, more carbs in the diet makes me famished, less carbs makes me satisfied.
I don't think you said anything different from what I said, so I'm not sure what you are correcting me on. I do eat a lower carb higher fat diet. I do not eat low carb and low fat. My days work out to something around 35% carbs, 35% fat, 30% protein.
Considering how calorie dense high carb foods can be, it's simple logic that if you try to cut your carbs you will inevitable cut your calories.
ETA: fixed typos and corrected my percentages.
It's actually quite different, imho, but maybe we're just having a communication problem. I have not just cut out some of the carbs. I have added in more vegetables, protein, and fats to make up the difference but the calorie counts are the same for me whether it was higher carb/lower fat or vice-versa. What I got from what you originally said is that you just cut the carbs so your calorie count was lower from just doing that. I think that's a key difference.
I don't think anybody should eat both low-carb and low-fat. I think that's a recipe for disaster.0 -
You are assuming that I ate a low fat diet before I cut the carbs. I didn't. I think you are right. I think there is a communication issue here.
My eating before hand was high fat and high carb. I've always liked fruits and veggies, so my diet also contained a lot of that stuff too. I think that makes me pretty typical of the majority of Americans at least who are eating both high fat and high carb.
So, when I cut back on my carbs, my fat was already high. I switched that fat over to mostly good fats like olive oils, avocados, fatty fish, etc. I added a bit more veggies to my diet usually in the form of a salad somewhere in the day, and i cut back my fruit to 1-2 servings a day.
This keeps me at or below 150g of carbs a day. My caloric intake is usually between 1300-1600 with MFP telling me to eat 1590 to lose a pound a week. My number usually work out to about 35% carbs, 35% fat, and 30% protein and in any case no more than 40% carbs with 30% each of fat and protein. When I eat more carbs than this I retain a hideous amount of water and I get pretty bloated, which all results in the scale moving up rather than down.0 -
I have to say that I have done a lot of low carb diets (Atkins, Dukan...etc) and have done really well on them. I lost weight quickly and feel great because I do retain a lot of water, so they work for me.
HOWEVER, I find them purely a short term fix and I am miserable when I am on them for any length of time. When I come off them I put on even more weight and am now at my heaviest. I think a lot of this is down to lots of 'last suppers' followed by fad diets that don't last long. Going from one extreme of eating to the other is really not good for the mind or body.
I am now focusing on having a normal healthy diet solely using MyFitnessPal that doesn't forbid me anything, as long as I count it as part of my daily calories. If I am going out for a meal or something, then I make sure I do the exercise to earn more calories. I've been doing it just over three weeks and feel the best I ever have, and what makes me feel euphoric is the fact I finally feel in control of my eating. I am rarely hungry and have only twice gone (very slightly) over my calorie intake because I don't feel the need to)
Sounds like you didn't do the diet properly by only going low-carb for 2 weeks to clear the system/break the cycle and then gradually add back in more carbs until you find the sweet spot, i.e. the number of carbs you can eat daily that allows you to continue to lose weight and feel satisfied. For some people that might only be 50 grams/carb day and, for others, that might be 150 or whatever.
Don't blame the eating plan when you didn't do it correctly and, of course, extreme eating trends will lead to yo-yo weight loss/weight gain situations.
I am in complete control of my eating as long as I keep my carbs to less than 100 grams/day, feel best when I keep them closer to 80, have unlimited energy for exercise, chronically good moods rather than roller-coaster emotions, feel satisfied, am never hungry, and am losing without feeling deprived.
Of course, what works for me may not work for you because we're all different. Some of us have more sensitivity to carbs than others so that's to be expected. So your experience doesn't make it true for all just as mine doesn't.
I agree with this based on experience wtih friends of mine that tried to do Atkins years ago after I had a ton of success. They reported that they felt horrible and only lasted a few weeks, while I was able to sustain it for a few years and feel great.
Recently they both have converted back to a low carb/Paleo diet and feel great and cleared up a lot of issues besides excess weight (acne, aching joints, trouble sleeping, etc). The difference? Before they were eating mostly processed meats, sugar free candy, diet soda and basically NO vegtables.
There is certainly a right and a wrong way to do low carb, and like most people find out, it's not something that you should go on and off of. All the time people go back to "normal" eating and wonder why they gain the weight back, 9 times in 10 it's because they go back to eating crap. There are plenty of people that loose on a low fat diet as well, go back to "normal" eating and gain it all back too because just like any low carb dieter they probably started eating plenty junk food when they gained back the weight (that's how I ended up back to being almost 100lbs over my goal weight...chips, candy, pasta, etc.). Just like anything else when you make changes and commit to exercise, diet and healty why would you go back?0 -
I just wish one thing and, if someone can answer this question in a way that makes sense to me, I'll back out of these low-carb threads.
What is unhealthy about eating lower-carb? In a typical day I eat:
1st breakfast: 1 T of peanut butter (because that's all I can stomach first thing in the AM but I'm mindful of getting something on the stomach after fasting from dinner as I rarely feel like eating later in the evening).
Real breakfast: 2-3 egg omelet with some vegetables, a bit of cheese, and, occasionally, bits of meat.
AM snack might be any of the following (not all of them, obviously): nuts, seeds, hard-boiled egg, 1/2 apple or other small portion of some other fruit with a bit of nut butter or a small chunk of cheese, just some cheese, 1-2 graham crackers with a small smear of butter, yogurt
Lunch might be any of the following, again not all of them: soup and salad, just a big salad filled with a wide variety of vegetables and nuts or seeds and some protein source (hard-boiled eggs, sliced meat, and/or cheese), open-faced sandwich one 100% whole-grain bread with a bit of salad and/or fruit on the side, or heating up leftovers from last night's dinner (see dinner for ideas of what that might be), some kind of lean protein with a salad and/or fruit on the side. Salad dressing is usually carefully-measured for portion control Ranch or just plain mayonnaise as I just can't stand oil/vinegar or some of the other options.
PM snack: See AM snack
Dinner: Several times a week we do a protein/vegetable stir-fry using a wide variety of vegetables and proteins and using either olive oil, butter, or wine and various seasonings so it's always different and doesn't become boring. Other nights are a protein with a large salad sometimes with a serving of steamed vegetable as well, now and then I might make brown rice or quinoa on the side but keep the serving size small for myself (my husband can tolerate a larger serving), occasionally I might add a small bit of potato but I usually only do this a few times a month if I'm just really craving one (I grew up on them so I do occasionally miss the flavor). Again, salad dressing is usually carefully-measured for portion control Ranch or just plain mayonnaise as I just can't stand oil/vinegar or some of the other options.
Eve snack: Rare to have these but, if I do, it's because I have calories left in my day to fill and I'm feeling a bit hungry. This might be any of the things listed for AM/PM snacks or, if I'm feeling like a splurge, a couple of cookies or a small serving of ice cream or some other treat.
Now and then, I do have a glass of milk at meals or snacks but I don't do this daily. I will also occasionally have some juice, usually one of the V8 fruit/veg drinks.
This is an ideal day and I feel great when I do it and lose steadily. Of course, not every day is ideal.
Anyway, if someone can tell me what is so unhealthy about eating this way, I'd love to hear it.
There is nothing unhealthy about eating low carb it's just that the media has demonized it because it's so contrary to what everyone has been taught for so long. Fact of the matter is that most low carb dieters eat more whole natural foods than most people do and that apparently offends and scares people
0 -
Honestly, If you cut your carbs you will also cut your calories.
This idea isn't very intuitive, which is why I don't believe in the theory that low-carb diets are "calorie-restrictive diets in disguise". If in fact overeating is a psychological condition as most mainstream dieticians believe (why else would you treat it with a psychological solution of manual caloric restriction?), then why wouldn't the person simply replace the lack of carbs with fat or protein? This is especially curious because they say fat is bad because its calorie dense (9 calories/gram as opposed to 4 calories/gram for carbs), so why wouldn't we eat MORE calories by substituting fat for carbs? Again we are psychologically driven to overeat right due to our toxic culture?0 -
There is certainly a right and a wrong way to do low carb, and like most people find out, it's not something that you should go on and off of. All the time people go back to "normal" eating and wonder why they gain the weight back, 9 times in 10 it's because they go back to eating crap. There are plenty of people that loose on a low fat diet as well, go back to "normal" eating and gain it all back too because just like any low carb dieter they probably started eating plenty junk food when they gained back the weight (that's how I ended up back to being almost 100lbs over my goal weight...chips, candy, pasta, etc.). Just like anything else when you make changes and commit to exercise, diet and healty why would you go back?
This is what drives me up the wall about so many dieters. They expect permanent results from a temporary solution. If they aren't in it for the long haul, then it is not worth doing at all.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions