Low Carb Eating

leenites

I choose low carb because if I eat rice in the afternoon for lunch, I get extreme food coma and it affects my productivity at work. =] That's about it, I think. I take carbs mainly for post-workout meal. It feels good to have carb in the system after a good gym time.

grinch031

in addition to the above, earlier in the thread i posted links to metabolic ward studies showing no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets

You can keep posting your studies all you want, but its not going to convince me. Just as Taubes debunked numerous studies saying that fat causes heart disease and high cholesterol among other diseases, perhaps your studies could also be debunked, and I'm not really not going to be the one to bother with it.

There are countless testimonies of people who have tried both calorie restricted diets and carb restricted diets and lost weight while eating more calories in the low-carb diet. I find it amazing that virtually nobody has to count calories anymore on a low-carb diet and still lose weight. Seldom do I hear of people gaining weight on a low carb diet, or if they do its only a small amount. My own experiences corroborate what others describe as well. Particularly the endurance athlete doc I posted about.

fitnessyeoja

bump

Acg67

in addition to the above, earlier in the thread i posted links to metabolic ward studies showing no metabolic advantage to low carb/keto diets

You can keep posting your studies all you want, but its not going to convince me. Just as Taubes debunked numerous studies saying that fat causes heart disease and high cholesterol among other diseases, perhaps your studies could also be debunked, and I'm not really not going to be the one to bother with it.

There are countless testimonies of people who have tried both calorie restricted diets and carb restricted diets and lost weight while eating more calories in the low-carb diet. I find it amazing that virtually nobody has to count calories anymore on a low-carb diet and still lose weight. Seldom do I hear of people gaining weight on a low carb diet, or if they do its only a small amount. My own experiences corroborate what others describe as well. Particularly the endurance athlete doc I posted about.

I did post plausible explanations for what you say people eating greater amounts of cals but lower carbs and losing weight, and you sou seem to neglect the fact that all your anecdotal evidence lacks controls and has numerous confounders at play.

paintbynmbrs

I really appreciate the "all is possible". Good Luck to you.:happy:

RonSwanson66

You can keep posting your studies all you want, but its not going to convince me.

Seldom do I hear of people gaining weight on a low carb diet

Your guru:

grinch031

You can keep posting your studies all you want, but its not going to convince me.

Seldom do I hear of people gaining weight on a low carb diet

Your guru:

neverming...pic won't show up.

So now remains the question, was Taubes also wrong about fat? Is fat really killing us?

Also what's your opinion on Wheat Belly? Here's a snippet from their site:

–Triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, such as chylomicrons and its remnants, are toxic to pancreatic beta cells: lipotoxicity.
–The gliadin protein of wheat stimulates appetite, causing the unwitting wheat consumer to eat, on average, 400 more calories per day, mostly from carbohydrates. 400 calories per day, 365 days per year . . . that’s a lot of extra calories, a lot of potential weight gain.
–The lectins of wheat (wheat germ agglutinin) are inflammatory, generating inflammation in multiple sites, such as joints, intestinal tract, and endocrine glands. Higher levels of inflammation and its various mediators (tumor necrosis factor, the interleukins, etc.) worsen insulin resistance, worsening the vicious cycle.

Aside from insulin resistance resistance being ruled out, is this is also wrong?

Is the truth that the only reason people get fat on wheat is because its less satiating then protein, so they eat more? Even if that were the absolute truth, I think that is more than good reason to ditch wheat products, because we can live without carbs, but we can't live without fat.

RonSwanson66

So now remains the question, was Taubes also wrong about fat? Is fat really killing us?

Debunking the lipid hypothesis was the only think Taubes got right.

Also what's your opinion on Wheat Belly?

He's a bigger idiot than Taubes. People that demonize wheat (or any individual food, for that matter) usually have a specific allergy or intolerance, then decide to generalize it to the rest of the population.

He doesn't even understand basic biochem:

Triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, such as chylomicrons and its remnants, are toxic to pancreatic beta cells: lipotoxicity.

Chylomicrons are the circulating form of dietary fat and have nothing to do with carbohydrates.

Is the truth that the only reason people get fat on wheat is because its less satiating then protein, so they eat more? Even if that were the absolute truth, I think that is more than good reason to ditch wheat products, because we can live without carbs, but we can't live without fat.

Why not apply that logic to everything in your life that isn't absolutely essential for survival and you'll finally learn the difference between "essential" and "optimal".

BreezyLuv

I've done low carb strictly because my whole family has done it and my mom has done it in the past on lost about 180lbs in 6 months and she looked amazing. I did it before and dropped weight pretty quick. I am on it now and haven't really noticed too much of a change in energy. I go to the gym every weekday and I have a trainer so he doesn't let me slack off. I actually think the gym needs to get harder so that I lose faster and tone quicker. Good Luck!

grinch031

So now remains the question, was Taubes also wrong about fat? Is fat really killing us?

Debunking the lipid hypothesis was the only think Taubes got right.

Also what's your opinion on Wheat Belly?

He's a bigger idiot than Taubes. People that demonize wheat (or any individual food, for that matter) usually have a specific allergy or intolerance, then decide to generalize it to the rest of the population.

He doesn't even understand basic biochem:

Triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, such as chylomicrons and its remnants, are toxic to pancreatic beta cells: lipotoxicity.

Chylomicrons are the circulating form of dietary fat and have nothing to do with carbohydrates.

Is the truth that the only reason people get fat on wheat is because its less satiating then protein, so they eat more? Even if that were the absolute truth, I think that is more than good reason to ditch wheat products, because we can live without carbs, but we can't live without fat.

Why not apply that logic to everything in your life that isn't absolutely essential for survival and you'll finally learn the difference between "essential" and "optimal".

So is there a single book in existence that is actually scientifically correct in regards to weight loss and health? Is there any particular scientist/doctor/author that we should listen to?

RonSwanson66

So is there a single book in existence that is actually scientifically correct in regards to weight loss and health? Is there any particular scientist/doctor/author that we should listen to?

Stop thinking "single" and start looking at the entire body of evidence. There is no "one true way". Any book/guru that claims this can be immediately disregarded.

To lose fat you need to create a caloric deficit: that's all. Choose the method that you can best adhere to. This will differ from person to person.

nursestewart

dump

grinch031

So is there a single book in existence that is actually scientifically correct in regards to weight loss and health? Is there any particular scientist/doctor/author that we should listen to?

Stop thinking "single" and start looking at the entire body of evidence. There is no "one true way". Any book/guru that claims this can be immediately disregarded.

To lose fat you need to create a caloric deficit: that's all. Choose the method that you can best adhere to. This will differ from person to person.

So back where we started. The "need to create a caloric deficit" is unhelpful, because it doesn't explain whether adding calories or subtracting calories will lead to that deficit, as the body's caloric expenditure cannot be accurately measured without high-tech equipment, and is very unpredictable when changes occur to either quality or quantity of calories.

RonSwanson66

It's called "monitoring your progress".

Set a caloric goal, and follow it for a few weeks. If you're losing weight, good. If not, adjust your intake and/or activity.

It isn't magic.

grinch031

It's called "monitoring your progress".

Set a caloric goal, and follow it for a few weeks. If you're losing weight, good. If not, adjust your intake and/or activity.

It isn't magic.

We're going to continue to disagree. Its either you starve yourself for the rest of your life (your approach), or you cut out certain foods for the rest of your life. I choose the latter, regardless of whether anybody really understands the science because it allows the body to naturally regulate weight and eat foods closer to what was available before agriculture. Seems like a no brainer to me.

RonSwanson66

Its either you starve yourself for the rest of your life (your approach), or you cut out certain foods for the rest of your life..

Nice strawman.


It's clear that you're either too dense or too stubborn to get the point. Enjoy depriving yourself.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

You've got to work with the tools you're given, I guess.

Acg67

It's called "monitoring your progress".

Set a caloric goal, and follow it for a few weeks. If you're losing weight, good. If not, adjust your intake and/or activity.

It isn't magic.

We're going to continue to disagree. Its either you starve yourself for the rest of your life (your approach), or you cut out certain foods for the rest of your life. I choose the latter, regardless of whether anybody really understands the science because it allows the body to naturally regulate weight and eat foods closer to what was available before agriculture. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Nice strawman

You know it's possible to eat cho, be in a deficit and not starve yourself?

grinch031

Its either you starve yourself for the rest of your life (your approach), or you cut out certain foods for the rest of your life..

Nice strawman.


It's clear that you're either too dense or too stubborn to get the point. Enjoy depriving yourself.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

You've got to work with the tools you're given, I guess.

Did you not say this?

i am always hungry, losing weight is effectively not eating enough, so your body reverts to eating itself . . . . . you should be hungry

So basically you choose to eat in such a way that you are undernourished and feeling hungry. However most people on a low-carb diet are able to lose weight without going hungry and without even thinking about calories. How is that possible? The only explanation I can think of is that their body decides it wants to shed fat because its in a healthier metabolic state. That is why when someone is naturally skinny, no matter how hard they try, they cannot gain weight because their body resists by shutting down its appetite as soon as they over-eat.

RonSwanson66

Did you not say this?

i am always hungry, losing weight is effectively not eating enough, so your body reverts to eating itself . . . . . you should be hungry

No. I did not say that.

grinch031

Did you not say this?

i am always hungry, losing weight is effectively not eating enough, so your body reverts to eating itself . . . . . you should be hungry

No. I did not say that.

Ok you got me there. That was a different poster. My mistake. The rest of my points still stands though.

RonSwanson66

The rest of my points still stands though.

Not even remotely.

You've been consistently ignoring the science that disagrees with every assertion you've attempted to make, relying instead on your flawed intuition.

How very Taubsian of you.

grinch031

The rest of my points still stands though.

Not even remotely.

You've been consistently ignoring the science that disagrees with every assertion you've attempted to make, relying instead on your flawed intuition.

How very Taubsian of you.

I think you're ignoring the points I'm trying to make as well. I am willing to concede that the science is incomplete and/or flawed, but that doesn't matter so much to me. You are the one making such an issue of the science.

What I have no doubt about is that there is no way that weight control is a psychological problem. That is why manual caloric manipulation is always going to fail. By mere fact that you even have to cut off your calorie intake means you are trying to override the natural hunger of your body and under-nourish it. The body will fight you relentlessly until your mind gives up. If there is an alternative that requires a much simpler psychological task (just don't touch certain foods), then knowing my body and through the testimony of others, I'm going to promote it. If you don't like that there isn't concrete science behind it, tough.

RonSwanson66

The rest of my points still stands though.

Not even remotely.

You've been consistently ignoring the science that disagrees with every assertion you've attempted to make, relying instead on your flawed intuition.

How very Taubsian of you.

I think you're ignoring the points I'm trying to make as well. I am willing to concede that the science is incomplete and/or flawed, but that doesn't matter so much to me. You are the one making such an issue of the science.

What I have no doubt about is that there is no way that weight control is a psychological problem. That is why manual caloric manipulation is always going to fail. By mere fact that you even have to cut off your calorie intake means you are trying to override the natural hunger of your body and under-nourish it. The body will fight you relentlessly until your mind gives up. If there is an alternative that requires a much simpler psychological task (just don't touch certain foods), then knowing my body and through the testimony of others, I'm going to promote it. If you don't like that there isn't concrete science behind it, tough.

If what you believe is true, then why is adherence to low-carb just as piss-poor as it is to any other method???


Everything you've claimed is simply untrue. It's not just that there isn't "concrete science behind it", but in many cases there is concrete science that clearly refutes it.

But just like a religious zealot, you choose to ignore it.


If you personally prefer low-carb, fine. More power to you. But you need to realize that not everyone responds the same way you do. Different methods work for different people.

grinch031

If what you believe is true, then why is adherence to low-carb just as piss-poor as it is to any other method???


Everything you've claimed is simply untrue. It's not just that there isn't "concrete science behind it", but in many cases there is concrete science that clearly refutes it.

But just like a religious zealot, you choose to ignore it.


If you personally prefer low-carb, fine. More power to you. But you need to realize that not everyone responds the same way you do. Different methods work for different people.

Science doesn't refute anything that leads me to believe low-carb diets are a superior type of diet than traditional calorie restricting diets. I don't care about whether a metabolic advantage exists, because I look at a low-carb diet as permanent and not for quick, temporary weight loss. I don't care if insulin is the main culprit or not, because I strongly believe the culprit is physiological and dependent on the quality of foods I put in my body, NOT the quantity. And increasing fat and protein seems to put my body in a natural energy balance that I haven't experienced since I was a teenager.

Well I won't deny there is a psychological component, but I can't see how cutting out carbohydrate-dense foods could possibly be any harder than underfeeding your body. However I recognize that some people don't like the food choices, and won't stick to the diet. That's understandable. But I also think if there wasn't this negative stigma attached to low-carb diets and more people were on them, it would be easier to avoid the temptations on a daily basis. The one thing I disagree with Taubes about is that I do think its a toxic environment that makes it easy for us to eat junk food. But I think the over-eating effect is almost without a doubt physiological.

RonSwanson66

If what you believe is true, then why is adherence to low-carb just as piss-poor as it is to any other method???


Everything you've claimed is simply untrue. It's not just that there isn't "concrete science behind it", but in many cases there is concrete science that clearly refutes it.

But just like a religious zealot, you choose to ignore it.


If you personally prefer low-carb, fine. More power to you. But you need to realize that not everyone responds the same way you do. Different methods work for different people.

Science doesn't refute anything that leads me to believe low-carb diets are a superior type of diet than traditional calorie restricting diets. I don't care about whether a metabolic advantage exists, because I look at a low-carb diet as permanent and not for quick, temporary weight loss. I don't care if insulin is the main culprit or not, because I strongly believe the culprit is physiological and dependent on the quality of foods I put in my body, NOT the quantity. And increasing fat and protein seems to put my body in a natural energy balance that I haven't experienced since I was a teenager.

Well I won't deny there is a psychological component, but I can't see how cutting out carbohydrate-dense foods could possibly be any harder than underfeeding your body. However I recognize that some people don't like the food choices, and won't stick to the diet. That's understandable. But I also think if there wasn't this negative stigma attached to low-carb diets and more people were on them, it would be easier to avoid the temptations on a daily basis. The one thing I disagree with Taubes about is that I do think its a toxic environment that makes it easy for us to eat junk food. But I think the over-eating effect is almost without a doubt physiological.

You "can't see" because you haven't bothered to look. The evidence is there IN THIS VERY THREAD.

nursestewart

bump

mrsdizzyd84

These sorts of debates are always amusing to watch unfold. I'm sure this one will go on for a while yet, but I'd just like to interject if I may.

Acg and others DID NOT SAY THAT LOW CARB DIETS WERE BOGUS, so I'm not sure why some of you are getting so defensive. He and others said that they weren't any better than a myriad of other "diets" one could undertake.

Translation: Congratulations on your weight loss! Of course you are losing weight, but low carb is not the ONLY way.

Carry on...

(BTW, I've decreased my carb intake to 100-120g/day with few ill effects. )

grinch031

These sorts of debates are always amusing to watch unfold. I'm sure this one will go on for a while yet, but I'd just like to interject if I may.

Acg and others DID NOT SAY THAT LOW CARB DIETS WERE BOGUS, so I'm not sure why some of you are getting so defensive. He and others said that they weren't any better than a myriad of other "diets" one could undertake.

Translation: Congratulations on your weight loss! Of course you are losing weight, but low carb is not the ONLY way.

Carry on...

(BTW, I've decreased my carb intake to 100-120g/day with few ill effects. )

I assume this is directed at me. Personally I don't care about what they think about the science of low carb diets because it is largely irrelevant to my reasons for thinking that low carb diets are superior to other diets. The most compelling argument for a low carb diet in my eyes is that they are closer to a natural diet than most higher carb diets.

Acg67

These sorts of debates are always amusing to watch unfold. I'm sure this one will go on for a while yet, but I'd just like to interject if I may.

Acg and others DID NOT SAY THAT LOW CARB DIETS WERE BOGUS, so I'm not sure why some of you are getting so defensive. He and others said that they weren't any better than a myriad of other "diets" one could undertake.

Translation: Congratulations on your weight loss! Of course you are losing weight, but low carb is not the ONLY way.

Carry on...

(BTW, I've decreased my carb intake to 100-120g/day with few ill effects. )

I assume this is directed at me. Personally I don't care about what they think about the science of low carb diets because it is largely irrelevant to my reasons for thinking that low carb diets are superior to other diets. The most compelling argument for a low carb diet in my eyes is that they are closer to a natural diet than most higher carb diets.

What exactly constitutes a natural diet?

grinch031

These sorts of debates are always amusing to watch unfold. I'm sure this one will go on for a while yet, but I'd just like to interject if I may.

Acg and others DID NOT SAY THAT LOW CARB DIETS WERE BOGUS, so I'm not sure why some of you are getting so defensive. He and others said that they weren't any better than a myriad of other "diets" one could undertake.

Translation: Congratulations on your weight loss! Of course you are losing weight, but low carb is not the ONLY way.

Carry on...

(BTW, I've decreased my carb intake to 100-120g/day with few ill effects. )

I assume this is directed at me. Personally I don't care about what they think about the science of low carb diets because it is largely irrelevant to my reasons for thinking that low carb diets are superior to other diets. The most compelling argument for a low carb diet in my eyes is that they are closer to a natural diet than most higher carb diets.

What exactly constitutes a natural diet?

What a human being would've eaten prior to agriculture.