CARBS??? VEGGIE carbs ok ? Or ?

Sarauk2sf

Basics !

estrogen
metabolism (solution of different bonds)
periodic disorders or cycles
more body fat percentage than men
and a long list to go

yes, but no conclusive studies yet...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136178/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17977473
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18045137
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10396370

and on and on.....

The poster was inferring that our sugar intake is relevant to these. From the studies, there is no mention of sugar, however, I know you have looked into sugar intake at a more granular level. Have you seen anything that would indicate that sugar itself is relevant to the list above?

sugar......
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/sugar-issues.shtml

That is the one I was alluding to thank you. I need to read it in more detail, but It does not appear though that there is any specifics re women which seems to be the point of the poster in the first quotes, It does however discuss some the benefits of sugar ;-)

I suppose I am still confused how sugar intake has a different impact on weight loss between women and men, which appears to be what the poster quoted was implying.

funkycamper

here's my two cents to OP:

You will lose weight by limiting your caloric intake, true. And you got two choices:

(1) you can eat tiny portions of "bad" carbohydrate foods (because they also tend to be high in calories) and find yourself feeling like caca (because they also tend to be low in nutrition)...by "bad" i mean you know white things (get DOWN WITH BROWN! -sorry couldn't help myself!) and things that are highly processed and refined.

Or

(2) you can eat large portions of "good" carbs (becaue they tend to be lower in calories) and feel much much better (because they tend to have more fiber and nutrients and proteins and what not)...by "good" i mean things like veggies and unrefined stuff like brown RICE and quinoa. [eek! i wrote brown sugar! so NOT what I meant!]

Or, you could have plenty of fruits and veggies, and you could also have bread/pasta, and you could feel great doing so. I choose the third option.

Or, if you have any kind of metabolic disorder or gluten-intolerance issues, you could feel like total and complete crap eating like your third option. And I believe that a higher percentage of those of us with weight problems have these issues than the general population.

If it works for you, great.

The low carb zealots who think everyone needs to lower their carbs are wrong. And people like you, the high carb zealots, are also wrong. Everybody doesn't respond to these food groups the same way so people need to experiment to find what works best for them.

astrummortis

Anything that came straight out of the earth and can be eaten with little (or ideally, no) processing is good for you, starch and carbs or no.


That said, I find keeping my carbs around 100 g a day helps compliment my weight loss and makes me feel amazing. So, eat any starch you want, but since grains and legumes require so much processing before you can safely eat them, I say keep them away for now.


My 2 cents. Sorry, Ikve got no links to crazy sources or anything, just my personal experiences and preferences.

Starla_

If there is no specific medical reason why you need to refrain from eating carbs, then eat the carbs.
If you don't enjoy holding slices of turkey and cheese with mayo in your hands, put it between slices of bread instead.
If you don't enjoy a solo side of tomato sauce, pour it over pasta.
If you don't enjoy the way your dinner plate looks with only meat and veggies on it and you have a missing feeling, rice goes really well in that empty place on your plate.

Do not restrict foods that you enjoy if you don't have to. Keep a calorie deficit and stay in your macros, all while eating the foods that you love and I guarantee that you will enjoy this process so much more. :flowerforyou:

I like this way of thinking

puggleperson

Eat your damn veggies! Carb or not! =D

tigersword

If there is no specific medical reason why you need to refrain from eating carbs, then eat the carbs.
If you don't enjoy holding slices of turkey and cheese with mayo in your hands, put it between slices of bread instead.
If you don't enjoy a solo side of tomato sauce, pour it over pasta.
If you don't enjoy the way your dinner plate looks with only meat and veggies on it and you have a missing feeling, rice goes really well in that empty place on your plate.

Do not restrict foods that you enjoy if you don't have to. Keep a calorie deficit and stay in your macros, all while eating the foods that you love and I guarantee that you will enjoy this process so much more. :flowerforyou:

This. There is no such thing as a good or bad carb. The overall diet matters way more than one specific type of food. Calorie deficit causes fat loss, not omitting a specific food.

And for the person with insulin resistance, you have an illness. Your medical needs are different than that of a normal person. Your opinion is invalid for a normal healthy person, just like a healthy person's advice is invalid for you.

robin52077

Anything that came straight out of the earth and can be eaten with little (or ideally, no) processing is good for you, starch and carbs or no.

Not to be picky, but, this is almost true. Not EVERYTHING eaten straight out of the earth with no processing is good for you.....

There are poisonous plants, mushrooms, berries, etc....
hell, even olives can kill you if eaten not fully ripened.:laugh:

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

here's my two cents to OP:

You will lose weight by limiting your caloric intake, true. And you got two choices:

(1) you can eat tiny portions of "bad" carbohydrate foods (because they also tend to be high in calories) and find yourself feeling like caca (because they also tend to be low in nutrition)...by "bad" i mean you know white things (get DOWN WITH BROWN! -sorry couldn't help myself!) and things that are highly processed and refined.

Or

(2) you can eat large portions of "good" carbs (becaue they tend to be lower in calories) and feel much much better (because they tend to have more fiber and nutrients and proteins and what not)...by "good" i mean things like veggies and unrefined stuff like brown RICE and quinoa. [eek! i wrote brown sugar! so NOT what I meant!]

Or, you could have plenty of fruits and veggies, and you could also have bread/pasta, and you could feel great doing so. I choose the third option.

Or, if you have any kind of metabolic disorder or gluten-intolerance issues, you could feel like total and complete crap eating like your third option. And I believe that a higher percentage of those of us with weight problems have these issues than the general population.

If it works for you, great.

The low carb zealots who think everyone needs to lower their carbs are wrong. And people like you, the high carb zealots, are also wrong. Everybody doesn't respond to these food groups the same way so people need to experiment to find what works best for them.

I think that generally, when posting in the forums, there's kind of an understood caveat that metabolic disorders/medical conditions are a different story. But since I didn't actually say that, I'll add it now. If you have a metabolic disorder, you should absolutely do what works for you. I am not a "high-carb zealot" I'm just a proponent of "eat what you want in moderation" (barring health conditions, once again). I didn't get the impression that the OP has a medical condition, but if so, then the OP should follow doctors/nutritionists advice.

ETA: Also my point was mostly that there aren't only two options regarding carbs. It's kind of like when people say "you can eat all junk, or you can eat healthy." That's not really true. There's a sliding scale from healthy to "junk" and you can eat anywhere along the scale. You don't have to choose one or the other.

mmapags

here's my two cents to OP:

You will lose weight by limiting your caloric intake, true. And you got two choices:

(1) you can eat tiny portions of "bad" carbohydrate foods (because they also tend to be high in calories) and find yourself feeling like caca (because they also tend to be low in nutrition)...by "bad" i mean you know white things (get DOWN WITH BROWN! -sorry couldn't help myself!) and things that are highly processed and refined.

Or

(2) you can eat large portions of "good" carbs (becaue they tend to be lower in calories) and feel much much better (because they tend to have more fiber and nutrients and proteins and what not)...by "good" i mean things like veggies and unrefined stuff like brown RICE and quinoa. [eek! i wrote brown sugar! so NOT what I meant!]

Or, you could have plenty of fruits and veggies, and you could also have bread/pasta, and you could feel great doing so. I choose the third option.

Or, if you have any kind of metabolic disorder or gluten-intolerance issues, you could feel like total and complete crap eating like your third option. And I believe that a higher percentage of those of us with weight problems have these issues than the general population.

If it works for you, great.

The low carb zealots who think everyone needs to lower their carbs are wrong. And people like you, the high carb zealots, are also wrong. Everybody doesn't respond to these food groups the same way so people need to experiment to find what works best for them.

I think that generally, when posting in the forums, there's kind of an understood caveat that metabolic disorders/medical conditions are a different story. But since I didn't actually say that, I'll add it now. If you have a metabolic disorder, you should absolutely do what works for you. I am not a "high-carb zealot" I'm just a proponent of "eat what you want in moderation" (barring health conditions, once again). I didn't get the impression that the OP has a medical condition, but if so, then the OP should follow doctors/nutritionists advice.

ETA: Also my point was mostly that there aren't only two options regarding carbs. It's kind of like when people say "you can eat all junk, or you can eat healthy." That's not really true. There's a sliding scale from healthy to "junk" and you can eat anywhere along the scale. You don't have to choose one or the other.

I'm not sure how that poster saw your comments as advocating high carbs. The point you make here is an excellent one. There is always a logical fallacy in this kind of discussion. That it is an either or between two extremes. Lyle McDonald has written on this. There is a large middle ground. In my own personal eating plan, I eat pretty much any carb I want but keep to my plan of about 35% of my calories from carbs. It comes out to 150 to 200 grams per day. Neither "high" nor "low". If you have a gluten issue, what you need to do. A fairly low % of the general population has metobolic issues or gluten issues, even accounting for the undiagnosed. Why apply the need of the specific few to the whole?

SideSteel

. The point you make here is an excellent one. There is always a logical fallacy in this kind of discussion. That it is an either or between two extremes. Lyle McDonald has written on this. There is a large middle ground.

This is the article and it's awesome:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html

mmapags

. The point you make here is an excellent one. There is always a logical fallacy in this kind of discussion. That it is an either or between two extremes. Lyle McDonald has written on this. There is a large middle ground.

This is the article and it's awesome:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/excluding-the-middle.html

Thanks pal!

funkycamper

And for the person with insulin resistance, you have an illness. Your medical needs are different than that of a normal person. Your opinion is invalid for a normal healthy person, just like a healthy person's advice is invalid for you.

True but some of the studies I've seen (and, sorry, but I don't have the time to dig them up right now) show that a higher percentage of people struggling with weight issues have these type of issues than the general population. So it's a fair bet that a decent size proportion of the people posting/reading here have this problem to some degree, even if non-diagnosed. So it's always a bad idea to tell everybody they can eat carbs without negative effects without qualifying that they might want to get themselves checked first. And, really, even the usual tests doctors give may not identify that they have an issue so even this might not reveal that a person should moderate their carb intake. I've come to believe that any person who struggles with weight issues should test their BG levels to see how their body responds and then plan their meals accordingly.

funkycamper

I think that generally, when posting in the forums, there's kind of an understood caveat that metabolic disorders/medical conditions are a different story. But since I didn't actually say that, I'll add it now. If you have a metabolic disorder, you should absolutely do what works for you. I am not a "high-carb zealot" I'm just a proponent of "eat what you want in moderation" (barring health conditions, once again). I didn't get the impression that the OP has a medical condition, but if so, then the OP should follow doctors/nutritionists advice.

ETA: Also my point was mostly that there aren't only two options regarding carbs. It's kind of like when people say "you can eat all junk, or you can eat healthy." That's not really true. There's a sliding scale from healthy to "junk" and you can eat anywhere along the scale. You don't have to choose one or the other.

Then we actually agree more than I thought. Sorry I jumped on you.

I do eat carbs in moderation and based on activity level. And sometimes splurge on them more than I should but that's a different story.

A lot of people have metabolic problems with carbs and they don't realize it so just because someone hasn't stated an issue doesn't mean they don't have one.

stacibuk

I blame low carb diets on being in the position I am now. I wish I had never done a low carb diet because that is why I am fat. A low carb diet is not sustainable and if you eat normally again, you put on tons of weight. I used to eat so much more than I can eat now & I weighed a lot less than I do now before I started the low carb diet which I believe messed up my metabolism. So, I would advise anyone thinking of doing such a diet to refrain from doing so. Yes, eating everything within reason, may take longer but it will also take longer for the weight to return.

And please nobody has metabolic issues with carbs. It's eating too much that is the problem. If you ate wholegrain pasta, bread etc, it is better than white and so on.

jenilla1

So anyways...I don't have any medical reasons to avoid carbs, and so I don't. In fact, I have never been overweight and I have always gotten the majority of my calories from carbs. I just try to limit the refined sugars and make my carbs whole grain and vegetable types as much as possible. I love my fiber and vitamins.

One major reason I'm on MFP is that I'm getting older and I'd started to creep up toward the upper end of my healthy BMI and I want to make sure I maintain in a healthy range. For me it's as simple as monitoring my calories and I've had no problem maintaining and even losing on a carb heavy diet - as long as my total calories are under control.

I'm sure it's a different story for some people with special health issues, or for those who have put on a lot of weight and are now insulin resistant. They really do need to watch their carbs.

funkycamper

I'm not sure how that poster saw your comments as advocating high carbs. The point you make here is an excellent one. There is always a logical fallacy in this kind of discussion. That it is an either or between two extremes. Lyle McDonald has written on this. There is a large middle ground. In my own personal eating plan, I eat pretty much any carb I want but keep to my plan of about 35% of my calories from carbs. It comes out to 150 to 200 grams per day. Neither "high" nor "low". If you have a gluten issue, what you need to do. A fairly low % of the general population has metobolic issues or gluten issues, even accounting for the undiagnosed. Why apply the need of the specific few to the whole?

And I'm all for people finding their own middle ground. I just kneejerk when people say that everybody can just load up on carbs without it being a problem for them.

As for your statement that a "fairly low % of the general population has metabolic issues or gluten issues"....hogwash.

According to the CDC report about 34% of US adults have it. According to the American Diabetes Association, while only 8.3% of the US population have been diagnosed with diabetes about another 25% of the US population have pre-diabetes (determined via fasting glucose levels and A1C tests) which brings us up to about that 33-34% of the entire population level.

And I haven't even bothered to look up the levels of people who have issues with gluten which would add more people who need to be careful of carbohydrate intake (or at least the source of their carbohydrates) into the mix.

The internals of these studies indicate that those who are severely overweight or obese have a higher percentage of diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) and other metabolic disorders than the general population. So, yeah, it's a fair bet that there are many people here on MFP, whether they know it or not, who have some kind of problem with carbohydrate consumption and should consider their carb intake when setting their targets.

Thus, why I feel like it's a bad idea to promote that just anybody on here eat a high level of carbs without doing some experimenting on their own body to see if they can find a level that works best for them.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

funkycamper

I blame low carb diets on being in the position I am now. I wish I had never done a low carb diet because that is why I am fat. A low carb diet is not sustainable and if you eat normally again, you put on tons of weight. I used to eat so much more than I can eat now & I weighed a lot less than I do now before I started the low carb diet which I believe messed up my metabolism. So, I would advise anyone thinking of doing such a diet to refrain from doing so. Yes, eating everything within reason, may take longer but it will also take longer for the weight to return.

And please nobody has metabolic issues with carbs. It's eating too much that is the problem. If you ate wholegrain pasta, bread etc, it is better than white and so on.

Thousands of people have had entirely different results. I also find that way too many people follow low-carb plans wrong. Ultra-low carb intake is only recommended for two weeks and then people should move up the carb ladder to find the level that works best for them as to sustainability, able to lose weight without feeling deprived, eat a variety of foods, etc. My sustainability level is around 75-150 grams/day based on the type of carbs and the amount of exercise and other activity I've had that day. If you stayed at the ultra-low level of 20-30 grams/day for an extended period, I can see why you have had problems.

mmapags

I'm not sure how that poster saw your comments as advocating high carbs. The point you make here is an excellent one. There is always a logical fallacy in this kind of discussion. That it is an either or between two extremes. Lyle McDonald has written on this. There is a large middle ground. In my own personal eating plan, I eat pretty much any carb I want but keep to my plan of about 35% of my calories from carbs. It comes out to 150 to 200 grams per day. Neither "high" nor "low". If you have a gluten issue, what you need to do. A fairly low % of the general population has metobolic issues or gluten issues, even accounting for the undiagnosed. Why apply the need of the specific few to the whole?

And I'm all for people finding their own middle ground. I just kneejerk when people say that everybody can just load up on carbs without it being a problem for them.

As for your statement that a "fairly low % of the general population has metabolic issues or gluten issues"....hogwash.

According to the CDC report about 34% of US adults have it. According to the American Diabetes Association, while only 8.3% of the US population have been diagnosed with diabetes about another 25% of the US population have pre-diabetes (determined via fasting glucose levels and A1C tests) which brings us up to about that 33-34% of the entire population level.

And I haven't even bothered to look up the levels of people who have issues with gluten which would add more people who need to be careful of carbohydrate intake (or at least the source of their carbohydrates) into the mix.

The internals of these studies indicate that those who are severely overweight or obese have a higher percentage of diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) and other metabolic disorders than the general population. So, yeah, it's a fair bet that there are many people here on MFP, whether they know it or not, who have some kind of problem with carbohydrate consumption and should consider their carb intake when setting their targets.

Thus, why I feel like it's a bad idea to promote that just anybody on here eat a high level of carbs without doing some experimenting on their own body to see if they can find a level that works best for them.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

Well, we are in agreement that I think everyone here on MFP should take into consideration thier carbohydrate consumption. I think being intentional and intelligent about setting your all your macronutrient targets is a key part of the process.
Where we would disagree is that I don't see a lot of people promoting the idea of eating a "high" level of carbs. Help me to understand what you consider a "high" level of carbs? I completely agree that people should figure out what level of all macronutrients fit for them to optimize health and exercise performance.

Thank you for posting the studies. I will take a look. Always open to learning.

Lisa6206

Your body uses them all as glucose, the source is irrelevant.

My insulin-resistant body would like to disagree with you.

OP: it's generally accepted that getting carbs from fruits, veggies, and whole grains is much, much better than getting them from simple starches (potatoes, white pasta, white bread) that break down quickly. The carbs in fruit/veggies/whole grains break down into glucose much slower, which is why those are preferable to things like french fries and white dinner rolls.

^^^ What she said!! Anyone who insulin resistant will tell you that there are good carbs and not-so-good for you carbs. The fruits and veggies are really good for you. Just stay away from the starches as much as you can. =0)

mmapags

I'm not sure how that poster saw your comments as advocating high carbs. The point you make here is an excellent one. There is always a logical fallacy in this kind of discussion. That it is an either or between two extremes. Lyle McDonald has written on this. There is a large middle ground. In my own personal eating plan, I eat pretty much any carb I want but keep to my plan of about 35% of my calories from carbs. It comes out to 150 to 200 grams per day. Neither "high" nor "low". If you have a gluten issue, what you need to do. A fairly low % of the general population has metobolic issues or gluten issues, even accounting for the undiagnosed. Why apply the need of the specific few to the whole?

And I'm all for people finding their own middle ground. I just kneejerk when people say that everybody can just load up on carbs without it being a problem for them.

As for your statement that a "fairly low % of the general population has metabolic issues or gluten issues"....hogwash.

According to the CDC report about 34% of US adults have it. According to the American Diabetes Association, while only 8.3% of the US population have been diagnosed with diabetes about another 25% of the US population have pre-diabetes (determined via fasting glucose levels and A1C tests) which brings us up to about that 33-34% of the entire population level.

And I haven't even bothered to look up the levels of people who have issues with gluten which would add more people who need to be careful of carbohydrate intake (or at least the source of their carbohydrates) into the mix.

The internals of these studies indicate that those who are severely overweight or obese have a higher percentage of diabetes (diagnosed and undiagnosed) and other metabolic disorders than the general population. So, yeah, it's a fair bet that there are many people here on MFP, whether they know it or not, who have some kind of problem with carbohydrate consumption and should consider their carb intake when setting their targets.

Thus, why I feel like it's a bad idea to promote that just anybody on here eat a high level of carbs without doing some experimenting on their own body to see if they can find a level that works best for them.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr013.pdf
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/

After looking at the studies I would have a couple of observations. The cdc data does find that 34% of the sample has metabolic syndrome but doesn't reference gluten at all. The data is all about metabolic syndrome in the overweight and obese. For me this and the whole diabetes and prediabetes issue are more related to chronic overcomsuption of all foods and carbs are only one element of that. To get back to better health, reducing calories and body fat with nutrient dense food and good macronutrient composition is nessesary.

On the gluten sensitivity issue, I have seen many numbers thrown about. Dr. Anthony Fasano in a study done at U.of Maryland estimates the numbers at 5 to 7%. I'm sorry that I can't post the study but I can't find the abstract. Only articles referencing it's findings. If you find better data, do post it.

Bottom line for me is for the overweight or obese, the first order of priority it to reduce thier weight by eating in a caloric deficit. The second priority is to get proper amounts of all thier macronutrients in a healthy balance. Third is to get moving and get some exercise. I don't see carbs as the devil and I don't think they should be overconsumed. I don't think I'm very different from many posters here. I don't see many people advocating high consumption of carbs. Based on your post in response to another poster, your personal intake of carbs looks reasonable and moderate for a person your size to me.

soliddreams

Keto is extremely hard to maintain after you go off it.

What a lot of trainers at my gym do, is they recommend you do single source carbs. For instance, sweet potatoes, potatoes, rice, oats, etc., and steer away from something like bread where they tend to have lots of things mixed in.

Broscience? Maybe, but it definitely has worked for me. Some Veggies like Corn has a ton of sugar in it, and then they add MORE sugar. So, you have to really scan the nutritional facts!

magerum

There are no bad carbs.

jofjltncb6

There are no bad carbs.

But there are good carbs that make bad choices.

And I sometimes make bad decisions with good carbs.

Proyecto_AN

Self-experiment; then you will know what works for you.

jofjltncb6

Self-experiment; then you will know what works for you.

n=1? And as if most people have the ability to isolate variables.

No thanks. I think I'll stick to getting the basics from actual research, and can then adjust my own implementation of it from there.

funkycamper

Well, we are in agreement that I think everyone here on MFP should take into consideration thier carbohydrate consumption. I think being intentional and intelligent about setting your all your macronutrient targets is a key part of the process.
Where we would disagree is that I don't see a lot of people promoting the idea of eating a "high" level of carbs. Help me to understand what you consider a "high" level of carbs? I completely agree that people should figure out what level of all macronutrients fit for them to optimize health and exercise performance.

Thank you for posting the studies. I will take a look. Always open to learning.

I think people saying things like "eat carbs, they're good for you" (paraphrased) and similar comments are pushing eating lots of carbs. I quite often see on here people saying that carbs should be 40-50% of your macros. For many of us, that would be a bad idea.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about what is a high level of carbs as I believe these vary depending on the person. Some people seem to do quite well with 300 grams/day or more. I generally eat about 75-100 grams/day but do sometimes have more without negative effects, i.e. on a day when I've done a 30, 40, 50 mile bike ride, for example. But if I have more without more intense/longer exercise than my normal 50-60 minutes/day, I have negative effects.

funkycamper

After looking at the studies I would have a couple of observations. The cdc data does find that 34% of the sample has metabolic syndrome but doesn't reference gluten at all. The data is all about metabolic syndrome in the overweight and obese. For me this and the whole diabetes and prediabetes issue are more related to chronic overcomsuption of all foods and carbs are only one element of that. To get back to better health, reducing calories and body fat with nutrient dense food and good macronutrient composition is nessesary.

On the gluten sensitivity issue, I have seen many numbers thrown about. Dr. Anthony Fasano in a study done at U.of Maryland estimates the numbers at 5 to 7%. I'm sorry that I can't post the study but I can't find the abstract. Only articles referencing it's findings. If you find better data, do post it.

Bottom line for me is for the overweight or obese, the first order of priority it to reduce thier weight by eating in a caloric deficit. The second priority is to get proper amounts of all thier macronutrients in a healthy balance. Third is to get moving and get some exercise. I don't see carbs as the devil and I don't think they should be overconsumed. I don't think I'm very different from many posters here. I don't see many people advocating high consumption of carbs. Based on your post in response to another poster, your personal intake of carbs looks reasonable and moderate for a person your size to me.

The typical American diet is said to have about 300grams/carb daily or more. I have seen many of the posters on MFP who say things like "eat carbs, they're good for you" also often say that our carb intake should be about 40-50% of our macros. At my calorie intake, that would be about 250 grams/day, about 2-3.5x what I currently eat.

I said that I was not gathering statistics for gluten intolerances. If you have found that figure to be about 5-7%, then that means the total of both is around 40%. Not an insignificant, low percentage of people.

I have to totally disagree with your conclusions about general over-consumption. My total caloric intake has not changed much over the years. I've always eaten around 1500-1800 calories per day. I have been tracking for years, including my macros, just not always on MFP. I am now losing on that amount of calories. Before, I gained on that amount. The only change is in the number of carbs I'm eating. I have read very similar experiences from hundreds of people on various low-carb forums including the low-carb groups here on MFP.

I should add that even people who been tested for diabetes, etc., and do not appear to have a metabolic disorder per the normal tests often have these results. While it's more critical for those of us with these disorders, better results from those changes are not limited to just those who have been diagnosed.

mmapags

I should add that even people who been tested for diabetes, etc., and do not appear to have a metabolic disorder per the normal tests often have these results. While it's more critical for those of us with these disorders, better results from those changes are not limited to just those who have been diagnosed.

What data do you base your conclusions on beside your anecdotal experience and what you read on low carb forums. Based on all available research, there has not been a metabolic advantage proven to a low carb diet vs. other diets. There is certainly a segment of the population that responds better to low carb. You are obviously one of them.
But highlyrespected experts who have analyzed the data such as James Kreiger, who admittedly has a bias in favor of low carb diet and that they should have a metabolic advantage, say none has been proven and even so it would not trump a requireing a calorie deficit. From his analysis on the subject:
1. The proposed metabolic advantage (MA) for low carb diets is a hypothesis, not a fact
2. There is inadequate data to support the MA hypothesis
3. There is inadequate data to reject the MA hypothesis
4. The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".
5. A definitive study examining 24-hour energy expenditure (using room calorimetry), comparing a ketogenic diet to a traditional diet (with matched protein intake) for subjects in an energy deficit, has not been performed. This is the only study that will adequately test the MA hypothesis in humans
6. Weight loss still requires an energy deficit. If a MA exists, it still cannot make up for an energy surplus or energy balance. To assert otherwise is to assert that energy can be created or destroyed out of thin air, or that human tissue can be created in the absence of any energy input.

If you feel you have credible studies to refute Krieger's conclusions, by all means post them.

You can also find a fairly detailed article on this topic by Steve Troutman, a highly respected fitness and nutrition expert who is one of our members here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/726526-an-objective-look-at-low-carb-dieting

I would also take issue with some of your logic. You are taking those that have metabolic issues and those who may have insulin sensitivity and adding those numbers together as having a common problem. They are not. They are two different issues. Those with metabolic issues have them generally because of chronic overeating. I know you don't agree but this is generally viewed as true by the medical and nutrition community. Those with gluten sensitivity don't nessesarily have an issue with non gluten based carbs.

In summary, because you have a sensitivity to carbs you are attemting to universalize low carb as a solution. This is faulty logic. It is called generalizing from the specific. If all those with metabolic issues can benefit from low carb that is 34% of the general population, leaving 66% that would not nessesarily. Also, most nutritional experts would not call 40% dietary carbs extremely high by any means.

I'm very happy for you that you have found the key to you health and weight management. But I sense that you have crossed the line from objectivity to advocacy. The overall data is pretty clear that low carb is great for some and not so much for others. I'm pretty sure, based upon that, I will not convince you and you will not convince me.

Best wishes on your progress!

saraann4

Hey general question for all you veteren weight loss pro's out there. When it comes to carbs, what are good what are bad? I have cut out carbs from bread, pasta and rice. I usually try and get about 100 grm of carbs a day and that is from mostly veggies/fruits. So is that ok ? I was hearing about the Atkins' diet and their carbs are below 50 a day sometimes around 25! And not much fruits or veggies on the meal ......... Just looking for some friendly advice and see what comes up. I was 286 lbs last Dec. I am now 194.8 lbs still have a bit to go, but the weight is coming off slower and slower. Wanting to speed it up a bit. Like this week NO LOSS NO GAIN!! Sucks. Just looking for some advice.

Thanks .. Mandy

Nothing is bad. It's called moderation. Heck with Atkins or anything that has a name and the word diet afterward. You have to ask yourself when looking at those diets, "Am I going to do this for the rest of my life?" The answer should be NO.

What I don't understand is why cut out bread, pasta, and rice. Are you ever going to eat those again? Are you completely off them for the rest of your life? That's ridiculous!

I started at 260lbs and still eat bread (just about everyday), pasta (once in a while), and rice (once in awhile, don't really like it anyway) and currently down to 192lbs. You are going to have some weeks where you don't lose. It's just the truth. It'll depend on sodium levels or TOM. Just to keep it real. I've had weeks where I've gained weight and trust me, it gets stressful. It's just a minor setback and you'll get through it.

balancedbrunette

If you spike insulin too fast does it cause you to store more fat??...i've read so much on this im generally confused now.