Low Carb Eating
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
dump0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
bump0
-
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. )0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions