If low carb works, why are people still fat?
Replies
-
Though, really, part of the success of LCD is that it's damn hard to eat tons of calories when you're just eating proteins and fats . Built in calorie deficit.
In equal amounts, fat has more than twice the calories of carbs. Why would it be harder to go over on calories with fats than with carbs? Fats are my downfall in calories. If I ate low fat I could eat much more volume than I do now.
Fat is purported to make you feel full easier/quicker, and because it doesn't have the glucose dump into the blood stream, you don't get the effects of elevated-then-decreasing blood sugar levels that you get with carbs (in other words - your blood glucose levels are more stable). So, you don't feel hungry, or start getting shaky, dizzy, or lethargic after a couple of hours after eating. So, while the same volume of food in a given meal might equate to more calories, and even if you ate the same volume (which, if you feel full quicker, you might not eat the same volume), you don't feel the need to eat as frequently throughout the day, and instead of eating, say, 5 times per day, you might eat 2 or 3 times, which can result in a net reduction of calorie consumption.
Higher protein intake is more closely associated with satiety than fat intake.0 -
Patient: The problem is obesity runs in my family.
Doctor: The problem is that nobody runs in your family.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
YES!! lol0 -
Though, really, part of the success of LCD is that it's damn hard to eat tons of calories when you're just eating proteins and fats . Built in calorie deficit.
In equal amounts, fat has more than twice the calories of carbs. Why would it be harder to go over on calories with fats than with carbs? Fats are my downfall in calories. If I ate low fat I could eat much more volume than I do now.
Fat is purported to make you feel full easier/quicker, and because it doesn't have the glucose dump into the blood stream, you don't get the effects of elevated-then-decreasing blood sugar levels that you get with carbs (in other words - your blood glucose levels are more stable). So, you don't feel hungry, or start getting shaky, dizzy, or lethargic after a couple of hours after eating. So, while the same volume of food in a given meal might equate to more calories, and even if you ate the same volume (which, if you feel full quicker, you might not eat the same volume), you don't feel the need to eat as frequently throughout the day, and instead of eating, say, 5 times per day, you might eat 2 or 3 times, which can result in a net reduction of calorie consumption.
I do agree that fat makes me feel full, but mostly I just like the taste of fat. And carbs. And protein. I love food.
I've never felt shaky, dizzy or lethargic a couple of hours after eating. Whether I feel hungry again would depend on the amount eaten. But, naturally, I never eat a meal of carbs only. Or fat only, for that matter. A good mix of carbs, fat and protein makes the best meal IMO.0 -
Information about Mr. Atkins's death. He was obese when he died according to the weight on his death certificate.
http://www.snopes.com/medical/doctor/atkins.asp
According to your own link, he was reported to be under 200lbs (not obese, and even at 200lb, the "overweight" classification on the BMI can be misleading if he was reasonably muscular) when he fell and went into a coma and had a 60lb gain from fluid retention and bloating due to organ failure.
Also, Atkins has never been the only person to promote a low-carb diet.0 -
It's a wish for an easy solution. "If I can just change my diet, eat 40 pounds of bacon a day, but skip the snickers, I'll be healthy!" It takes work. Are there some great tips that can come out of this research? Sure. It's been interesting to see some of the info about fat processing, carb effects, alcohol, etc. I think it's good information to create for yourself a good, educated, and balanced diet.
Why do people assume "low carb" = "plates of bacon" (or otherwise unbalanced)? Not all low carb diets are the same (and most of them aren't first-week-on-Atkins). Also, it's low carb, not no carb, which allows for things like (*gasp!*) vegetables and fruit. Most of the logic behind low carb is that we don't need 6-11 servings of grains per day, or 200-300 grams or more of carbohydrates, and that we can work just fine on numbers closer to or under 100g/day, which can get just fine with a diet that has a lot of vegetables.0 -
Though, really, part of the success of LCD is that it's damn hard to eat tons of calories when you're just eating proteins and fats . Built in calorie deficit.
In equal amounts, fat has more than twice the calories of carbs. Why would it be harder to go over on calories with fats than with carbs? Fats are my downfall in calories. If I ate low fat I could eat much more volume than I do now.
Fat is purported to make you feel full easier/quicker, and because it doesn't have the glucose dump into the blood stream, you don't get the effects of elevated-then-decreasing blood sugar levels that you get with carbs (in other words - your blood glucose levels are more stable). So, you don't feel hungry, or start getting shaky, dizzy, or lethargic after a couple of hours after eating. So, while the same volume of food in a given meal might equate to more calories, and even if you ate the same volume (which, if you feel full quicker, you might not eat the same volume), you don't feel the need to eat as frequently throughout the day, and instead of eating, say, 5 times per day, you might eat 2 or 3 times, which can result in a net reduction of calorie consumption.
I do agree that fat makes me feel full, but mostly I just like the taste of fat. And carbs. And protein. I love food.
I've never felt shaky, dizzy or lethargic a couple of hours after eating. Whether I feel hungry again would depend on the amount eaten. But, naturally, I never eat a meal of carbs only. Or fat only, for that matter. A good mix of carbs, fat and protein makes the best meal IMO.
From the looks of your diary, I'd say it's largely because you eat/have something every couple of hours, keeping the more extreme symptoms (shakiness, dizziness) at bay, but that's just a guess (and to be fair, some people don't have, or at least don't notice, such symptoms, for various reasons).
That said, I don't think anyone here is pushing ideas like only eating fat or only eating protein. That's not what most low carb diets are about. They're about only consuming 50-150g of carbs instead of 300g. They're still balanced (hey look, there's veggies in that omlete!), but simply with a different idea of what "a good mix of carbs, fat, and protein" that makes the best meal.
0 -
Though, really, part of the success of LCD is that it's damn hard to eat tons of calories when you're just eating proteins and fats . Built in calorie deficit.
In equal amounts, fat has more than twice the calories of carbs. Why would it be harder to go over on calories with fats than with carbs? Fats are my downfall in calories. If I ate low fat I could eat much more volume than I do now.
Fat is purported to make you feel full easier/quicker, and because it doesn't have the glucose dump into the blood stream, you don't get the effects of elevated-then-decreasing blood sugar levels that you get with carbs (in other words - your blood glucose levels are more stable). So, you don't feel hungry, or start getting shaky, dizzy, or lethargic after a couple of hours after eating. So, while the same volume of food in a given meal might equate to more calories, and even if you ate the same volume (which, if you feel full quicker, you might not eat the same volume), you don't feel the need to eat as frequently throughout the day, and instead of eating, say, 5 times per day, you might eat 2 or 3 times, which can result in a net reduction of calorie consumption.
I do agree that fat makes me feel full, but mostly I just like the taste of fat. And carbs. And protein. I love food.
I've never felt shaky, dizzy or lethargic a couple of hours after eating. Whether I feel hungry again would depend on the amount eaten. But, naturally, I never eat a meal of carbs only. Or fat only, for that matter. A good mix of carbs, fat and protein makes the best meal IMO.
From the looks of your diary, I'd say it's largely because you eat/have something every couple of hours, keeping the more extreme symptoms (shakiness, dizziness) at bay, but that's just a guess (and to be fair, some people don't have, or at least don't notice, such symptoms, for various reasons).
That said, I don't think anyone here is pushing ideas like only eating fat or only eating protein. That's not what most low carb diets are about. They're about only consuming 50-150g of carbs instead of 300g. They're still balanced (hey look, there's veggies in that omlete!), but simply with a different idea of what "a good mix of carbs, fat, and protein" that makes the best meal.
?? I don't eat something every 2 hours. At least not every day (some days I probably eat even more often than that). Like I said, I don't have set eating times, except for lunch when I'm at work.0 -
Though, really, part of the success of LCD is that it's damn hard to eat tons of calories when you're just eating proteins and fats . Built in calorie deficit.
In equal amounts, fat has more than twice the calories of carbs. Why would it be harder to go over on calories with fats than with carbs? Fats are my downfall in calories. If I ate low fat I could eat much more volume than I do now.
Fat is purported to make you feel full easier/quicker, and because it doesn't have the glucose dump into the blood stream, you don't get the effects of elevated-then-decreasing blood sugar levels that you get with carbs (in other words - your blood glucose levels are more stable). So, you don't feel hungry, or start getting shaky, dizzy, or lethargic after a couple of hours after eating. So, while the same volume of food in a given meal might equate to more calories, and even if you ate the same volume (which, if you feel full quicker, you might not eat the same volume), you don't feel the need to eat as frequently throughout the day, and instead of eating, say, 5 times per day, you might eat 2 or 3 times, which can result in a net reduction of calorie consumption.
I do agree that fat makes me feel full, but mostly I just like the taste of fat. And carbs. And protein. I love food.
I've never felt shaky, dizzy or lethargic a couple of hours after eating. Whether I feel hungry again would depend on the amount eaten. But, naturally, I never eat a meal of carbs only. Or fat only, for that matter. A good mix of carbs, fat and protein makes the best meal IMO.
From the looks of your diary, I'd say it's largely because you eat/have something every couple of hours, keeping the more extreme symptoms (shakiness, dizziness) at bay, but that's just a guess (and to be fair, some people don't have, or at least don't notice, such symptoms, for various reasons).
That said, I don't think anyone here is pushing ideas like only eating fat or only eating protein. That's not what most low carb diets are about. They're about only consuming 50-150g of carbs instead of 300g. They're still balanced (hey look, there's veggies in that omlete!), but simply with a different idea of what "a good mix of carbs, fat, and protein" that makes the best meal.
?? I don't eat something every 2 hours. At least not every day (some days I probably eat even more often than that). Like I said, I don't have set eating times, except for lunch when I'm at work.
*shrug* Like I said, that's what your diary looks like, given you have 6 meals/snacks, and the days you've filled out more than 1 or 2 of them have all of them filled out. Given a generic 16-hour day (24 - 8 sleeping hours), that puts snacks/meals 2-3 hours apart, on average (hence "every couple of hours"; though even 6 meals/snacks across an entire 24 is a 4 hour average difference).0 -
Though, really, part of the success of LCD is that it's damn hard to eat tons of calories when you're just eating proteins and fats . Built in calorie deficit.
In equal amounts, fat has more than twice the calories of carbs. Why would it be harder to go over on calories with fats than with carbs? Fats are my downfall in calories. If I ate low fat I could eat much more volume than I do now.
Fat is purported to make you feel full easier/quicker, and because it doesn't have the glucose dump into the blood stream, you don't get the effects of elevated-then-decreasing blood sugar levels that you get with carbs (in other words - your blood glucose levels are more stable). So, you don't feel hungry, or start getting shaky, dizzy, or lethargic after a couple of hours after eating. So, while the same volume of food in a given meal might equate to more calories, and even if you ate the same volume (which, if you feel full quicker, you might not eat the same volume), you don't feel the need to eat as frequently throughout the day, and instead of eating, say, 5 times per day, you might eat 2 or 3 times, which can result in a net reduction of calorie consumption.
I do agree that fat makes me feel full, but mostly I just like the taste of fat. And carbs. And protein. I love food.
I've never felt shaky, dizzy or lethargic a couple of hours after eating. Whether I feel hungry again would depend on the amount eaten. But, naturally, I never eat a meal of carbs only. Or fat only, for that matter. A good mix of carbs, fat and protein makes the best meal IMO.
From the looks of your diary, I'd say it's largely because you eat/have something every couple of hours, keeping the more extreme symptoms (shakiness, dizziness) at bay, but that's just a guess (and to be fair, some people don't have, or at least don't notice, such symptoms, for various reasons).
That said, I don't think anyone here is pushing ideas like only eating fat or only eating protein. That's not what most low carb diets are about. They're about only consuming 50-150g of carbs instead of 300g. They're still balanced (hey look, there's veggies in that omlete!), but simply with a different idea of what "a good mix of carbs, fat, and protein" that makes the best meal.
?? I don't eat something every 2 hours. At least not every day (some days I probably eat even more often than that). Like I said, I don't have set eating times, except for lunch when I'm at work.
*shrug* Like I said, that's what your diary looks like, given you have 6 meals/snacks, and the days you've filled out more than 1 or 2 of them have all of them filled out. Given a generic 16-hour day (24 - 8 sleeping hours), that puts snacks/meals 2-3 hours apart, on average (hence "every couple of hours"; though even 6 meals/snacks across an entire 24 is a 4 hour average difference).
Since you are curious, the most common distribution of my food is:
Breakfast: 7:00 a.m.
Snack: 10 - 10:30 a.m. (if I get hungry)
Lunch: 12:30 lunch
Snack: 2:00- 3:00 (never later because I workout after work and need to make sure it's fully digested)
Dinner: 8:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Dessert: 1/2 - 1 hr after dinner
But since you checked out my diary, you must know that I am nearly always over on protein and fat and under on carbs, often under your 150 carb goal. Why do you suppose i still feel the need to eat so often??0 -
Though, really, part of the success of LCD is that it's damn hard to eat tons of calories when you're just eating proteins and fats . Built in calorie deficit.
In equal amounts, fat has more than twice the calories of carbs. Why would it be harder to go over on calories with fats than with carbs? Fats are my downfall in calories. If I ate low fat I could eat much more volume than I do now.
Fat is purported to make you feel full easier/quicker, and because it doesn't have the glucose dump into the blood stream, you don't get the effects of elevated-then-decreasing blood sugar levels that you get with carbs (in other words - your blood glucose levels are more stable). So, you don't feel hungry, or start getting shaky, dizzy, or lethargic after a couple of hours after eating. So, while the same volume of food in a given meal might equate to more calories, and even if you ate the same volume (which, if you feel full quicker, you might not eat the same volume), you don't feel the need to eat as frequently throughout the day, and instead of eating, say, 5 times per day, you might eat 2 or 3 times, which can result in a net reduction of calorie consumption.
I do agree that fat makes me feel full, but mostly I just like the taste of fat. And carbs. And protein. I love food.
I've never felt shaky, dizzy or lethargic a couple of hours after eating. Whether I feel hungry again would depend on the amount eaten. But, naturally, I never eat a meal of carbs only. Or fat only, for that matter. A good mix of carbs, fat and protein makes the best meal IMO.
From the looks of your diary, I'd say it's largely because you eat/have something every couple of hours, keeping the more extreme symptoms (shakiness, dizziness) at bay, but that's just a guess (and to be fair, some people don't have, or at least don't notice, such symptoms, for various reasons).
That said, I don't think anyone here is pushing ideas like only eating fat or only eating protein. That's not what most low carb diets are about. They're about only consuming 50-150g of carbs instead of 300g. They're still balanced (hey look, there's veggies in that omlete!), but simply with a different idea of what "a good mix of carbs, fat, and protein" that makes the best meal.
?? I don't eat something every 2 hours. At least not every day (some days I probably eat even more often than that). Like I said, I don't have set eating times, except for lunch when I'm at work.
*shrug* Like I said, that's what your diary looks like, given you have 6 meals/snacks, and the days you've filled out more than 1 or 2 of them have all of them filled out. Given a generic 16-hour day (24 - 8 sleeping hours), that puts snacks/meals 2-3 hours apart, on average (hence "every couple of hours"; though even 6 meals/snacks across an entire 24 is a 4 hour average difference).
Since you are curious, the most common distribution of my food is:
Breakfast: 7:00 a.m.
Snack: 10 - 10:30 a.m. (if I get hungry)
Lunch: 12:30 lunch
Snack: 2:00- 3:00 (never later because I workout after work and need to make sure it's fully digested)
Dinner: 8:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Dessert: 1/2 - 1 hr after dinner
But since you checked out my diary, you must know that I am nearly always over on protein and fat and under on carbs, often under your 150 carb goal. Why do you suppose i still feel the need to eat so often??
150 is generally the high end, and from the entries I saw, you were above that (168 was about the lowest I saw, and around 200 was typical). Also, your fat and protein goals are kind of low (relatively speaking), so going over them wouldn't be that difficult (assuming your goal weight of 147 is your "ideal" weight, then your protein could be bumped up a little; if you were to also set your carb goal to 100, that would then naturally bring your fat goal up, since it's all percentages).0 -
Though, really, part of the success of LCD is that it's damn hard to eat tons of calories when you're just eating proteins and fats . Built in calorie deficit.
In equal amounts, fat has more than twice the calories of carbs. Why would it be harder to go over on calories with fats than with carbs? Fats are my downfall in calories. If I ate low fat I could eat much more volume than I do now.
Fat is purported to make you feel full easier/quicker, and because it doesn't have the glucose dump into the blood stream, you don't get the effects of elevated-then-decreasing blood sugar levels that you get with carbs (in other words - your blood glucose levels are more stable). So, you don't feel hungry, or start getting shaky, dizzy, or lethargic after a couple of hours after eating. So, while the same volume of food in a given meal might equate to more calories, and even if you ate the same volume (which, if you feel full quicker, you might not eat the same volume), you don't feel the need to eat as frequently throughout the day, and instead of eating, say, 5 times per day, you might eat 2 or 3 times, which can result in a net reduction of calorie consumption.
I do agree that fat makes me feel full, but mostly I just like the taste of fat. And carbs. And protein. I love food.
I've never felt shaky, dizzy or lethargic a couple of hours after eating. Whether I feel hungry again would depend on the amount eaten. But, naturally, I never eat a meal of carbs only. Or fat only, for that matter. A good mix of carbs, fat and protein makes the best meal IMO.
From the looks of your diary, I'd say it's largely because you eat/have something every couple of hours, keeping the more extreme symptoms (shakiness, dizziness) at bay, but that's just a guess (and to be fair, some people don't have, or at least don't notice, such symptoms, for various reasons).
That said, I don't think anyone here is pushing ideas like only eating fat or only eating protein. That's not what most low carb diets are about. They're about only consuming 50-150g of carbs instead of 300g. They're still balanced (hey look, there's veggies in that omlete!), but simply with a different idea of what "a good mix of carbs, fat, and protein" that makes the best meal.
?? I don't eat something every 2 hours. At least not every day (some days I probably eat even more often than that). Like I said, I don't have set eating times, except for lunch when I'm at work.
*shrug* Like I said, that's what your diary looks like, given you have 6 meals/snacks, and the days you've filled out more than 1 or 2 of them have all of them filled out. Given a generic 16-hour day (24 - 8 sleeping hours), that puts snacks/meals 2-3 hours apart, on average (hence "every couple of hours"; though even 6 meals/snacks across an entire 24 is a 4 hour average difference).
Since you are curious, the most common distribution of my food is:
Breakfast: 7:00 a.m.
Snack: 10 - 10:30 a.m. (if I get hungry)
Lunch: 12:30 lunch
Snack: 2:00- 3:00 (never later because I workout after work and need to make sure it's fully digested)
Dinner: 8:30 - 9:30 p.m.
Dessert: 1/2 - 1 hr after dinner
But since you checked out my diary, you must know that I am nearly always over on protein and fat and under on carbs, often under your 150 carb goal. Why do you suppose i still feel the need to eat so often??
150 is generally the high end, and from the entries I saw, you were above that (168 was about the lowest I saw, and around 200 was typical). Also, your fat and protein goals are kind of low (relatively speaking), so going over them wouldn't be that difficult (assuming your goal weight of 147 is your "ideal" weight, then your protein could be bumped up a little; if you were to also set your carb goal to 100, that would then naturally bring your fat goal up, since it's all percentages).
Using the 'Reports' tab over the last 90 days my carbs have averaged about 150, with a low of around 80 and a high of around 300.
My macronutrient goals are what MFP set, and I don't see a need to change them since they match the recommendation of the Institute of Health.0 -
Using the 'Reports' tab over the last 90 days my carbs have averaged about 150, with a low of around 80 and a high of around 300.
My macronutrient goals are what MFP set, and I don't see a need to change them since they match the recommendation of the Institute of Health.
I don't have access to your reports tab, so I can't see your chart and don't know how you came up with the 150 number (midline of the chart?), but given that you appear to be pretty consistent with getting around 175-200 on a daily basis of the ones I saw (and that you logged), and your logging is rather spotty, it doesn't surprise me that the midline sits about 150 (with extremes swinging from 0 to 300).
That said, I'm not really sure what you're looking for at this point. You asked how LCDs can also be low in calories when a given volume of fat has more calories than an equal volume of carbs. I answered. You don't feel the extreme symptoms of dropping blood sugar. Great! Like I said, some people don't. As with all things in this, not everyone reacts exactly the same way to everything. You happened to have your diary public, so I took a look at it and I saw that you eat every few hours (which, by your own explanation, appears to be largely true, overall) and made observations about that.
As for your question about why you feel you need to eat every couple of hours, it might have to do with the fact that your breakfast, morning snack, and sometimes even your lunch are typically less than 300 calories each (even as low a 100 for breakfast, as you have only a glass of chocolate soy milk). In your case, it may be as simple as you not getting enough food at a given meal, period. But you know yourself better than I know you, so if that's what you're content with and it works for you, go for it. Whatever floats your boat.0 -
Using the 'Reports' tab over the last 90 days my carbs have averaged about 150, with a low of around 80 and a high of around 300.
My macronutrient goals are what MFP set, and I don't see a need to change them since they match the recommendation of the Institute of Health.
I don't have access to your reports tab, so I can't see your chart and don't know how you came up with the 150 number (midline of the chart?), but given that you appear to be pretty consistent with getting around 175-200 on a daily basis of the ones I saw (and that you logged), and your logging is rather spotty, it doesn't surprise me that the midline sits about 150 (with extremes swinging from 0 to 300).
That said, I'm not really sure what you're looking for at this point. You asked how LCDs can also be low in calories when a given volume of fat has more calories than an equal volume of carbs. I answered. You don't feel the extreme symptoms of dropping blood sugar. Great! Like I said, some people don't. As with all things in this, not everyone reacts exactly the same way to everything. You happened to have your diary public, so I took a look at it and I saw that you eat every few hours (which, by your own explanation, appears to be largely true, overall) and made observations about that.
As for your question about why you feel you need to eat every couple of hours, it might have to do with the fact that your breakfast, morning snack, and sometimes even your lunch are typically less than 300 calories each (even as low a 100 for breakfast, as you have only a glass of chocolate soy milk). In your case, it may be as simple as you not getting enough food at a given meal, period. But you know yourself better than I know you, so if that's what you're content with and it works for you, go for it. Whatever floats your boat.
I agree that I eat so often throughout the day because I just snack throughout the day and often don't actually "eat" anything solid until lunch. I really only have what I consider a "meal" once a day. I like a big dinner with wine so I eat light during the day to accommodate that.
I was just arguing that I don't eat often because of carbs.0 -
Also, Atkins has never been the only person to promote a low-carb diet.
True, but I wonder why so many of the experts who promote low-carb, wheat is evil, diets look fat and sick?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zVxA6yipv4 0 -
Also, Atkins has never been the only person to promote a low-carb diet.
True, but I wonder why so many of the experts who promote low-carb, wheat is evil, diets look fat and sick?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zVxA6yipv4
oh geez...you are really grabbing at anything to be hatin on low carb....LAME0 -
Nope, no hate involved. Unless by hate you mean the sincere belief that low-carb is an unhealthy fad diet that leads people to be exploited by overweight hucksters selling diet books, then yes.0
-
You haven't kept up with the science.Nope, no hate involved. Unless by hate you mean the sincere belief that low-carb is an unhealthy fad diet that leads people to be exploited by overweight hucksters selling diet books, then yes.
"Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets may be effective alternatives to low-fat diets. The more favorable effects on lipids (with the low-carbohydrate diet) and on glycemic control (with the Mediterranean diet) suggest that personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00160108.)"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
"In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone diet, and had experienced comparable or more favorable metabolic effects than those assigned to the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets [corrected] While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
"This study provides a surprising challenge to prevailing dietary practice. The current standards for healthy eating include reducing total fat intake to less than 30% of total calories and decreasing saturated fat intake to less than 10%. This recommendation is based on a large body of primarily epidemiological data and is intended to lower plasma cholesterol (23), but has been extended by some experts as a means to decrease the risk of obesity. However, the subjects on the very low carbohydrate diet experienced significantly more weight loss than the low fat group and maintained comparable levels of plasma lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors while consuming more than 50% of their calories as fat and 20% as saturated fat. These data indicate that the role of macronutrient distribution in individuals who are on weight loss diets needs to be further investigated. In particular, it seems likely that in the short term, a decrease in total caloric intake with accompanying weight loss has a greater impact on nutritionally sensitive parameters such as plasma lipids than do the macronutrient constituents of the diet."
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long
If you'd like to read up on some of the newest studies there's a whole list here:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science0 -
Nope, no hate involved. Unless by hate you mean the sincere belief that low-carb is an unhealthy fad diet that leads people to be exploited by overweight hucksters selling diet books, then yes.
no offense but you really have no clue what you are talking about. Low carb is not a recent fad diet. Do some reading.0 -
I didn't say that low-carb diets don't work for weight loss. I said they're unhealthy. There was the recent study comparing low-carb, low-gi, and low-fat diets that showed that low-carb diets work, but they also increase stress and inflammation hormones.0
-
Nope, no hate involved. Unless by hate you mean the sincere belief that low-carb is an unhealthy fad diet that leads people to be exploited by overweight hucksters selling diet books, then yes.
no offense but you really have no clue what you are talking about. Low carb is not a recent fad diet. Do some reading.
I didn't say it was recent. In fact the low-carb diet has been around for nearly 150 years. But that doesn't make it any less a current fad, or any less unhealthy. And I'll beg your pardon, but I think you clearly intended offense.0 -
Again, I think you need to so some more research if you accepted the headlines of the study for what the study actually showed.0
-
Again, I think you need to so some more research if you accepted the headlines of the study for what the study actually showed.
You're gong to have to be more specific, which study are you referring to, and why do you assume that I only read the headline?0 -
I didn't say that low-carb diets don't work for weight loss. I said they're unhealthy. There was the recent study comparing low-carb, low-gi, and low-fat diets that showed that low-carb diets work, but they also increase stress and inflammation hormones.
As with all diets it matters what you eat. Sure there are plenty of ways to eat low carb and be supremely unhealthy, for example If you just eat piles of bacon. However, a sensible diet with plenty of veggies, good quality meats, cheeses,eggs and nuts with a good mix of different kinds of fats (basically limiting omega-6 fatty acids) is going to be both good for you and satisfying.0 -
Go to marksdailyapple.com for info on low-carb eating. There is a wealth of info.0
-
Because it never occurred to me someone who takes the time to read the studies available on low carb diets could be so ignorant. But I'm glad you read up on it and formed your opinion from the information available to you.Again, I think you need to so some more research if you accepted the headlines of the study for what the study actually showed.
You're gong to have to be more specific, which study are you referring to, and why do you assume that I only read the headline?
You think low carb diets are fad and unhealthy. And after reading the same studies you did I came to the exact opposite conclusion so I guess there's really no point in continuing this, is there?0 -
Go to marksdailyapple.com for info on low-carb eating. There is a wealth of info.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in taking advice from someone who advocates taking illegal steroids.
"I would incorporate therapeutic amounts of testosterone (yes, I know it's illegal, but I'm giving you the best-case scenario), to balance out high levels of cortisol when I have gone to the well too much."
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Features/Mark_Sisson_says_training_is_no_guarantee_of_health._4.html0 -
Because it never occurred to me someone who takes the time to read the studies available on low carb diets could be so ignorant. But I'm glad you read up on it and formed your opinion from the information available to you.Again, I think you need to so some more research if you accepted the headlines of the study for what the study actually showed.
You're gong to have to be more specific, which study are you referring to, and why do you assume that I only read the headline?
You think low carb diets are fad and unhealthy. And after reading the same studies you did I came to the exact opposite conclusion so I guess there's really no point in continuing this, is there?
I see, so the only way to be informed is to read the studies you linked? I'm sorry, but there's a world of information out there. Also I notice that you said that I haven't kept up on current research, but the three studies you linked to are at least 4 years old at this point.
And thanks for the "ignorant" insult. You're right, we have nothing further to discuss.0 -
bump0
-
Go to marksdailyapple.com for info on low-carb eating. There is a wealth of info.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in taking advice from someone who advocates taking illegal steroids.
"I would incorporate therapeutic amounts of testosterone (yes, I know it's illegal, but I'm giving you the best-case scenario), to balance out high levels of cortisol when I have gone to the well too much."
http://www.slowtwitch.com/Features/Mark_Sisson_says_training_is_no_guarantee_of_health._4.html
you have taken his statement totally out of context...but you have convinced yourself...good luck0 -
You haven't kept up with the science.Nope, no hate involved. Unless by hate you mean the sincere belief that low-carb is an unhealthy fad diet that leads people to be exploited by overweight hucksters selling diet books, then yes.
"Mediterranean and low-carbohydrate diets may be effective alternatives to low-fat diets. The more favorable effects on lipids (with the low-carbohydrate diet) and on glycemic control (with the Mediterranean diet) suggest that personal preferences and metabolic considerations might inform individualized tailoring of dietary interventions. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00160108.)"
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
"In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone diet, and had experienced comparable or more favorable metabolic effects than those assigned to the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets [corrected] While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17341711
"This study provides a surprising challenge to prevailing dietary practice. The current standards for healthy eating include reducing total fat intake to less than 30% of total calories and decreasing saturated fat intake to less than 10%. This recommendation is based on a large body of primarily epidemiological data and is intended to lower plasma cholesterol (23), but has been extended by some experts as a means to decrease the risk of obesity. However, the subjects on the very low carbohydrate diet experienced significantly more weight loss than the low fat group and maintained comparable levels of plasma lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors while consuming more than 50% of their calories as fat and 20% as saturated fat. These data indicate that the role of macronutrient distribution in individuals who are on weight loss diets needs to be further investigated. In particular, it seems likely that in the short term, a decrease in total caloric intake with accompanying weight loss has a greater impact on nutritionally sensitive parameters such as plasma lipids than do the macronutrient constituents of the diet."
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/88/4/1617.long
If you'd like to read up on some of the newest studies there's a whole list here:
http://www.dietdoctor.com/science
Did you even read the A to Z weight loss study? Notice anything interesting in the results?
and lol to the person who said Mark's daily apple had a "wealth of info" while there is lots of info there, much of it is garbage0
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions