Low-Carb
Replies
-
I guess my point is none of this really matters to me. The human body is supposed to regulate its own fat storage without the mind manually overriding the appetite signaling of the body. That is how animals do it, and most of them are neither starving nor obese.
Oh i was unaware that we track all wild animals weights and then figure out if they are obese or not. Unless you're once again just using observational assessments and then trying to compare those to humans, which of course is totally applicableSo you will jump back to saying it must be the over-availability of food that causes us to become obese. The problem with that is you give most low-carbers an abundance of eggs, meat, green veggies, or other low-carb foods and they lose weight pretty effortlessly. So to me, its not the over-availability of food, but the over-availability of *seasonal* food, or food that just happens to be high in carbohydrates. Sure some are worse offenders than others, but not surprisingly it seems like the worst offenders are those that are most refined and hence unnatural to our diets.
It's pretty easy to dominate a 10 egg, bacon and cheese fritatta and it not make a dent on your hunger, just like it's not all that hard to put back a lb or 2 of steak slathered in butter. See what i'm doing there? using anecdotal evidence to dispute your claimI have met countless skinny people who claim they eat whatever they want and cannot gain a pound. Yet every time I spend a significant amount of time with them, they will eat one big meal and not touch food for the next 24 hours (slight exaggeration). Their body does not signal hunger for a long time after a big meal and they are convinced they actually eat a lot, until they spend time with me and see that I really do eat a lot when I let loose on the food. Why am I driven to eat like a pig but these people aren't? And back when I was a teen, I ate what I wanted and my body stayed thin but now it wants to gain weight. What is the difference?
Or maybe they don't give into false hunger signals and better at actually exerting a little will power?0 -
Or maybe they don't give into false hunger signals and better at actually exerting a little will power?
This is the issue. This and parents teaching their kids to eat right and actually use the word, "NO" once and a while.
/thread0 -
The difference was that we didn't have video games and cable TV. We went outside to play every chance we got because inside was boring. We probably ate less in general because we were outside and not near the kitchen, but kids ate carbs and lots of them back then.
I really don't buy the argument that activity levels make a whole lot of difference. I don't see why the body wouldn't just down-regulate food intake when the person is less active. I know when I am more active, I don't lose weight, I stay the same or even gain because my hunger increases and I feel like I'm always trying to resist weight gain.
It's possible that our bodies want us to eat less when we are sendentary. But many people don't. Our bodies don't prevent us from overeating no matter what our activity level.
Personally, I only lose weight when I exercise. Not because I can't lose by eating less, but because I don't eat less. I feel hungry much of the time if I eat little enough to stay thin without exercise.0 -
Its not known for sure. I know more research needs to be done. Leptin and insulin both play a role. I just don't and will never buy the argument that it is caused by the individual's gluttony or lack of willpower. Why do some people automatically eat just the right amount and others need willpower? That's not driven by the body?
People becoming more sedentary over time combined with the easy availability of food has lead to people eating in excess.
Okay I find the sedentary claim to be nonsense. There is little evidence that the amount of physical activity has more than a marginal effect on weight management.
I will agree with easy availability of food, but more specifically easy availability of carbohydrate-based foods. Carbs were seasonal only before agriculture. Now they are available year round, and they are cheap and mostly refined. That to me is the big cause.
Seriously? Even though any expert on nutrition and exercise includes your level of activity in determining how much one should eat to lose, maintain, or gain weight? If activity is irrelevant, why account for it?
Before agriculture? Are we talking strictly like caveman times then? Even the earliest civilizations stored grain.
I'm not anti-low carb by any means but this conversation is getting silly. In general, people get fat because of bad food decisions. Whether it's willpower or a lack of education and / or laziness.
If you are using calorie restriction as a means to manage weight, then of course your activity level is relevant. My point is that for a metabolically healthy human body that is eating an optimal diet, the level of activity should have little to no bearing on their weight. More exercise should automatically lead to more eating and less exercise should lead to less eating.
And on why people get fat, you have your opinion and I have mine. I still think willpower and laziness wouldn't be relevant if not for the toxic environment full of refined carbs.0 -
Its not known for sure. I know more research needs to be done. Leptin and insulin both play a role. I just don't and will never buy the argument that it is caused by the individual's gluttony or lack of willpower. Why do some people automatically eat just the right amount and others need willpower? That's not driven by the body?
People becoming more sedentary over time combined with the easy availability of food has lead to people eating in excess.
Okay I find the sedentary claim to be nonsense. There is little evidence that the amount of physical activity has more than a marginal effect on weight management.
I will agree with easy availability of food, but more specifically easy availability of carbohydrate-based foods. Carbs were seasonal only before agriculture. Now they are available year round, and they are cheap and mostly refined. That to me is the big cause.
Seriously? Even though any expert on nutrition and exercise includes your level of activity in determining how much one should eat to lose, maintain, or gain weight? If activity is irrelevant, why account for it?
Before agriculture? Are we talking strictly like caveman times then? Even the earliest civilizations stored grain.
I'm not anti-low carb by any means but this conversation is getting silly. In general, people get fat because of bad food decisions. Whether it's willpower or a lack of education and / or laziness.
If you are using calorie restriction as a means to manage weight, then of course your activity level is relevant. My point is that for a metabolically healthy human body that is eating an optimal diet, the level of activity should have little to no bearing on their weight. More exercise should automatically lead to more eating and less exercise should lead to less eating.
And on why people get fat, you have your opinion and I have mine. I still think willpower and laziness wouldn't be relevant if not for the toxic environment full of refined carbs.
I know eating evil white rice forever made Asia super fat0 -
Its not known for sure. I know more research needs to be done. Leptin and insulin both play a role. I just don't and will never buy the argument that it is caused by the individual's gluttony or lack of willpower. Why do some people automatically eat just the right amount and others need willpower? That's not driven by the body?
People becoming more sedentary over time combined with the easy availability of food has lead to people eating in excess.
Okay I find the sedentary claim to be nonsense. There is little evidence that the amount of physical activity has more than a marginal effect on weight management.
I will agree with easy availability of food, but more specifically easy availability of carbohydrate-based foods. Carbs were seasonal only before agriculture. Now they are available year round, and they are cheap and mostly refined. That to me is the big cause.
Seriously? Even though any expert on nutrition and exercise includes your level of activity in determining how much one should eat to lose, maintain, or gain weight? If activity is irrelevant, why account for it?
Before agriculture? Are we talking strictly like caveman times then? Even the earliest civilizations stored grain.
I'm not anti-low carb by any means but this conversation is getting silly. In general, people get fat because of bad food decisions. Whether it's willpower or a lack of education and / or laziness.
If you are using calorie restriction as a means to manage weight, then of course your activity level is relevant. My point is that for a metabolically healthy human body that is eating an optimal diet, the level of activity should have little to no bearing on their weight. More exercise should automatically lead to more eating and less exercise should lead to less eating.
And on why people get fat, you have your opinion and I have mine. I still think willpower and laziness wouldn't be relevant if not for the toxic environment full of refined carbs.
I know eating evil white rice forever made Asia super fat
* toxic environment full of refined wheat and sugar. The Asians are why I don't think we know the full story. But I certainly don't think eating bacon and eggs is going to make anybody fat.0 -
Its not known for sure. I know more research needs to be done. Leptin and insulin both play a role. I just don't and will never buy the argument that it is caused by the individual's gluttony or lack of willpower. Why do some people automatically eat just the right amount and others need willpower? That's not driven by the body?
People becoming more sedentary over time combined with the easy availability of food has lead to people eating in excess.
Okay I find the sedentary claim to be nonsense. There is little evidence that the amount of physical activity has more than a marginal effect on weight management.
I will agree with easy availability of food, but more specifically easy availability of carbohydrate-based foods. Carbs were seasonal only before agriculture. Now they are available year round, and they are cheap and mostly refined. That to me is the big cause.
Seriously? Even though any expert on nutrition and exercise includes your level of activity in determining how much one should eat to lose, maintain, or gain weight? If activity is irrelevant, why account for it?
Before agriculture? Are we talking strictly like caveman times then? Even the earliest civilizations stored grain.
I'm not anti-low carb by any means but this conversation is getting silly. In general, people get fat because of bad food decisions. Whether it's willpower or a lack of education and / or laziness.
If you are using calorie restriction as a means to manage weight, then of course your activity level is relevant. My point is that for a metabolically healthy human body that is eating an optimal diet, the level of activity should have little to no bearing on their weight. More exercise should automatically lead to more eating and less exercise should lead to less eating.
And on why people get fat, you have your opinion and I have mine. I still think willpower and laziness wouldn't be relevant if not for the toxic environment full of refined carbs.
What is optimal? Most recommendations include fruits, vegetables, and grains.
If you look at controlling the toxicity of anything, it all comes down to human decisions and your ability to say no. Drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, sex, anything. Non-toxic items like ice cream and candy bars only become toxic when they're abused and abuse is a human decision.0 -
The difference was that we didn't have video games and cable TV. We went outside to play every chance we got because inside was boring. We probably ate less in general because we were outside and not near the kitchen, but kids ate carbs and lots of them back then.
I really don't buy the argument that activity levels make a whole lot of difference. I don't see why the body wouldn't just down-regulate food intake when the person is less active. I know when I am more active, I don't lose weight, I stay the same or even gain because my hunger increases and I feel like I'm always trying to resist weight gain.
It's possible that our bodies want us to eat less when we are sendentary. But many people don't. Our bodies don't prevent us from overeating no matter what our activity level.
Personally, I only lose weight when I exercise. Not because I can't lose by eating less, but because I don't eat less. I feel hungry much of the time if I eat little enough to stay thin without exercise.
I disagree with you. The majority of children and teens (and a much smaller number of adults) can eat anything they want and don't gain weight. Is it because they have a "fast metabolism"? NO, its because their body is healthy enough to regulate fat storage regardless of the types of food they eat or the amount of exercise. Some kids of course are genetically predisposed to obesity and that coupled with their parents' bad dieting habits, they become obese. But they are still the minority.
So with all that, anybody can lose weight and anybody can gain weight (calories IN = calories OUT), but the trick is whether it is done naturally or through some kind of manual intervention.0 -
Its not known for sure. I know more research needs to be done. Leptin and insulin both play a role. I just don't and will never buy the argument that it is caused by the individual's gluttony or lack of willpower. Why do some people automatically eat just the right amount and others need willpower? That's not driven by the body?
People becoming more sedentary over time combined with the easy availability of food has lead to people eating in excess.
Okay I find the sedentary claim to be nonsense. There is little evidence that the amount of physical activity has more than a marginal effect on weight management.
I will agree with easy availability of food, but more specifically easy availability of carbohydrate-based foods. Carbs were seasonal only before agriculture. Now they are available year round, and they are cheap and mostly refined. That to me is the big cause.
Seriously? Even though any expert on nutrition and exercise includes your level of activity in determining how much one should eat to lose, maintain, or gain weight? If activity is irrelevant, why account for it?
Before agriculture? Are we talking strictly like caveman times then? Even the earliest civilizations stored grain.
I'm not anti-low carb by any means but this conversation is getting silly. In general, people get fat because of bad food decisions. Whether it's willpower or a lack of education and / or laziness.
If you are using calorie restriction as a means to manage weight, then of course your activity level is relevant. My point is that for a metabolically healthy human body that is eating an optimal diet, the level of activity should have little to no bearing on their weight. More exercise should automatically lead to more eating and less exercise should lead to less eating.
And on why people get fat, you have your opinion and I have mine. I still think willpower and laziness wouldn't be relevant if not for the toxic environment full of refined carbs.
What is optimal? Most recommendations include fruits, vegetables, and grains.
If you look at controlling the toxicity of anything, it all comes down to human decisions and your ability to say no. Drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, sex, anything. Non-toxic items like ice cream and candy bars only become toxic when they're abused and abuse is a human decision.
One of the big problems I see is there is no consensus as to what constitutes a *healthy* diet. For starters, I sadly think most of us would be better off if the USDA food pyramid was inverted (although I'd still eat lots of green veggies, and sweets would not be grouped with fats).0 -
The majority of children and teens (and a much smaller number of adults) can eat anything they want and don't gain weight. Is it because they have a "fast metabolism"? NO, its because their body is healthy enough to regulate fat storage regardless of the types of food they eat or the amount of exercise. Some kids of course are genetically predisposed to obesity and that coupled with their parents' bad dieting habits, they become obese. But they are still the minority.
I don't see the logic in that. Why are so many less children able "to regulate fat storage regardless of the types of food they eat or the amount of exercise" today than 40 years ago?0 -
The majority of children and teens (and a much smaller number of adults) can eat anything they want and don't gain weight. Is it because they have a "fast metabolism"? NO, its because their body is healthy enough to regulate fat storage regardless of the types of food they eat or the amount of exercise. Some kids of course are genetically predisposed to obesity and that coupled with their parents' bad dieting habits, they become obese. But they are still the minority.
I don't see the logic in that. Why are so many less children able "to regulate fat storage regardless of the types of food they eat or the amount of exercise" today than 40 years ago?
Well carbohydrate intake has increased, presumably so has the *refined* variety. Plus more and more people are obese and continue to procreate, passing on their dietary habits and genetics down to children. Plus the mainstream dietary advice over the past 40 years has been promoting higher carbs and lower fat, which has proven to be a failure.0 -
* toxic environment full of refined wheat and sugar. The Asians are why I don't think we know the full story. But I certainly don't think eating bacon and eggs is going to make anybody fat.
So, are you a proponent of low-carb diets, or diets low in refined wheat and sugar? If someone eats a diet high in carbs from whole grains, fruits and vegetables, do you think that would healthy?0 -
Plus the mainstream dietary advice over the past 40 years has been promoting higher carbs and lower fat, which has proven to be a failure.
I don't disagree with that at all to be honest. I think our educational system and corporate America has done a very poor job educating us on nutrition. All these low fat snack foods are rather bad, no doubt. But again, eating this crap is a choice. That garbage doesn't unwrap itself and jump in our mouths. It doesn't jump in the parent's shopping cart and say **** you take me home and feed me to your kids.0 -
As you can see from the very large number of responses, this is a very controversial subject.
Here is a link to some clinical studies, meant for doctors, when treating obesity:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/ob_home.htm
The complete study is there, plus some calculators.
In particular, I recommend you to read:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/obesity/prctgd_c.pdf
Page 27 shows some guidelines for a Low Calorie Diet:
Nutrient Recommended Intake
Calories: Approximately 500 to 1,000 kcal/day reduction from usual intake
Total fat: 30 percent or less of total calories
Saturated fatty acids: 8 to 10 percent of total calories
Monounsaturated fatty acids: Up to 15 percent of total calories
Polyunsaturated fatty acids: Up to 10 percent of total calories
Cholesterol: <300 mg/day
Protein: Approximately 15 percent of total calories
Carbohydrate: 55 percent or more of total calories
Sodium chloride: No more than 100 mmol/day (approximately 2.4 g of sodium or
approximately 6 g of sodium chloride)
Calcium: 1,000 to 1,500 mg/day
Fiber: 20 to 30 g/day0 -
Plus the mainstream dietary advice over the past 40 years has been promoting higher carbs and lower fat, which has proven to be a failure.
I don't disagree with that at all to be honest. I think our educational system and corporate America has done a very poor job educating us on nutrition. All these low fat snack foods are rather bad, no doubt. But again, eating this crap is a choice. That garbage doesn't unwrap itself and jump in our mouths. It doesn't jump in the parent's shopping cart and say **** you take me home and feed me to your kids.
Agreed. But I think this idea that the only thing that matters is total calories is doing them a disservice as well. I really believe that eating too much refined carbs drives excessive hunger in susceptible individuals. That's why I don't give the advice to just eat in moderation, because even I can't manage to eat certain foods in moderation without going on a binge.0 -
* toxic environment full of refined wheat and sugar. The Asians are why I don't think we know the full story. But I certainly don't think eating bacon and eggs is going to make anybody fat.
So, are you a proponent of low-carb diets, or diets low in refined wheat and sugar? If someone eats a diet high in carbs from whole grains, fruits and vegetables, do you think that would healthy?
I say eat as little or as much carbs as you can manage. I think its all about managing appetite and the rest of the behavior will fall into place. I have not seen or experienced a better way to manage appetite than carb restriction. However the hardest part I think is being surrounded by temptation to cheat and the overall inconvenience of the diet.0 -
From experience of many friends who have done it........works fast but not a healthy lifestyle change and guess what.....yep, they all gained it back!0
-
No not at all. Show me an obese population that eats less than 150-200g a day.
Show me ANY population that eats less than 150-200g of carbs/day.0 -
No not at all. Show me an obese population that eats less than 150-200g a day.
Show me ANY population that eats less than 150-200g of carbs/day.
aren't these guys still around?
0 -
aren't these guys still around?
Hey Acg, I think something went wrong with your post. There wasn't any text:
0 -
I actually didn't have any tone. I'm sorry you don't understand my tone.0 -
I honestly don't know, but if anyone is willing to show studies or evidence of thin people with type 2 diabetes show us.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24716880/ns/health-diabetes/t/even-thin-person-can-get-diabetes/#.T1mJa4GPWEs
0 -
I honestly don't know, but if anyone is willing to show studies or evidence of thin people with type 2 diabetes show us.
http://www.preventivemedicine.northwestern.edu/researchprojects/lda.htm0 -
I honestly don't know, but if anyone is willing to show studies or evidence of thin people with type 2 diabetes show us.
http://www.preventivemedicine.northwestern.edu/researchprojects/lda.htm
I guess I unblocked you last time or something... but, one of the first words i saw was BMI... if you can tell me this study isn't based around BMI, i will continue reading.
Why are you interested in Type 2 diabetes in thin people?0 -
I honestly don't know, but if anyone is willing to show studies or evidence of thin people with type 2 diabetes show us.
http://www.preventivemedicine.northwestern.edu/researchprojects/lda.htm
I guess I unblocked you last time or something... but, one of the first words i saw was BMI... if you can tell me this study isn't based around BMI, i will continue reading.
Why are you interested in Type 2 diabetes in thin people?
This goes back to the asians who eat a ton of rice, yet are thin. I am saying that some body types handle glucose very well compared to others, call it genetics if you want.
Oh yeah. You should read "The Carnivore Connection" if you haven't already. It helps explain a theory of why some people can't seem to adapt to low-carb diets and some people seem to require them.
Not sure of the importance of type 2 diabetes in thin people though. I think the causes of both obesity and diabetes are somewhat related, but not exactly the same which might explain why you can have each without the ohter.0 -
I honestly don't know, but if anyone is willing to show studies or evidence of thin people with type 2 diabetes show us.
http://www.preventivemedicine.northwestern.edu/researchprojects/lda.htm
I guess I unblocked you last time or something... but, one of the first words i saw was BMI... if you can tell me this study isn't based around BMI, i will continue reading.
Why are you interested in Type 2 diabetes in thin people?
This goes back to the asians who eat a ton of rice, yet are thin. I am saying that some body types handle glucose very well compared to others, call it genetics if you want.
Oh yeah. You should read "The Carnivore Connection" if you haven't already. It helps explain a theory of why some people can't seem to adapt to low-carb diets and some people seem to require them.
Not sure of the importance of type 2 diabetes in thin people though. I think the causes of both obesity and diabetes are somewhat related, but not exactly the same which might explain why you can have each without the ohter.
I have 2 cousins who are thin, they eat cookies and cakes all day, yet don't gain a pound. Type 2 diabetes is developed usually through bad diets. there are probably cases where thin people develop it, but I don't know, that's what i am curious about. More than likely most Asians really don't suffer from insulin related issues.
Here is an explanation from a blogger. I don't know of the scientific validity of this snippet, but this might help:
http://itsthewooo.blogspot.com/2011/12/i-really-am-feeling-much-better.htmlThis again evidences the "diabetes // obesity" dichotomy. You are either RESPONDING to insulin (e.g. obesity) or you are NOT (e.g. diabetes). In clinical reality there is no dichotomy, and a patient can have a little of both, or a lot of both, but from a physiological perspective, assuming glucose intolerance is true, the more the body errs toward insulin responsiveness, the more "obese" you are, and the more the body errs toward insulin unresponsiveness, the more "Diabetic" you are. It's like choosing a path in a forest, you can't take both trails, a shift toward one means a deviation away from the other.
The reason both occur in patients so frequently, is because obesity is usually an earlier symptom of glucose intolerance, whereas diabetes is a later symptom. First you have high insulin signalling (thus obesity), then when adipocytes reach genetic potential + chronic high insulin leads to receptor downregulation and general pathological changes of the pancreas (with less ability to make insulin due to loss of beta cells), the person then develops insulin RESISTANCE and diabetes/inflammation from visceral fat deposition leads to even more resistance.
It is NEVER true that a person starts out with severe insulin resistance, and THEN Becomes obese. It is only possible to have obesity first and THEN develop insulin resistance (and this does frequently occur, not always, but frequently). The reason you can't do it in reverse is because insulin resistance completely prevents fat accumulation in adipose - hyperglycemia is, basically, the inability to take up TGs in fat tissue any more/inhibit FFA release (an insulin-mediated phenomenon) with glucose lingering about as a result. Resisting the action of insulin logically translates into resisting obesity. This is why I laughed so hard at the LIRKO argument.
So what she's saying is that hyperinsulinemia leads to obesity and then insulin resistance, which leads to diabetes. In another part of the blog she says your adipose tissue needs to be genetically predisposed to hypertrophy and hyperplastia in order to suffer from obesity. So perhaps if you don't have a gene to become obese, you can just become diabetic on an unhealthy diet of refined carbs.0 -
This goes back to the asians who eat a ton of rice, yet are thin. I am saying that some body types handle glucose very well compared to others, call it genetics if you want.
I wish people would stop saying that Asians eat tons of rice; I lived in China for 2 and a 1/2 years and their diet is largely what we would consider low carb...rice is consumed very moderately (a small amount at the very end of a main meal is the norm), and DOES NOT comprise the majority of their diets. Chinese people don't eat sugar, bread, dairy or many processed foods. When I was there, there was concern about a growing overweight population because of the influence of a Western diet, which included bread, sugar, dairy and processed convenience foods.0 -
My body can't tolerate a lot of carbs, so I will go on low-carb when I'm feeling unwell. It works for me, but it's all about listening to your body. I know that I get insulin spikes and stomach upsets when eating high GI carbs like white rice, pasta, potato, any type of bread (especially!!) and while I adore bread and rice, it does not adore me.
If you aren't aware of any serious deficiencies or imbalances in your body / body chemistry, then please, just try the balanced approach first. Why go to the extreme if it's not going to be something you can stick to long term?0 -
Two great books to read:
Wheat Belly
Wheat is the Devil
I never looked at carbs the same (specifically wheat products).0 -
I tried Atkins for a while a few years ago. I lost about 30 pounds, but was getting very dizzy / lightheaded any time I tried to exercise. Later gained all the weight back (and then some).
That sucks....0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 433 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions